Nikon D90 and 18-105mm/f3.5-5.6 AF-S VR DX Announced

Bob Atkins previews the Nikon D90. Take a look at photo.net's Preview on the Nikon D90.

I was hoping for newer AF module and 1/250 sync. Happy it uses D80 battery, happy it has D300 sensor and metering. The movie mode and live view don't excite me any. No surprises I guess. I'll see how the reviews shake out, but will likely end up getting one. After a few months when price drops of course. I'm not stupid.

Kent in SD

I'm intrigued and confused about the GPS unit. dpreview says the D90 doesn't have the 10 pin connector of the other models, yet the unit is compatible with them all. weird.

For what's worth, I am keen on finding out more about the GP-1. Is it like the DawnTech and RedHen systems, where the GPS coordinates are slapped into the NEF when it is written into the CF? How much power does it suck up --- is it as little as the RedHen system or is it a power drainer like DawnTech?

The D90 has a different sensor from the D300, 12.9Mp vs. 12.3Mp, and the new sensor can also do video, albeit limited to 5 min at 720p resolution.

For the flagship bodies of the future, the GPS should be incorporated within the body. I don't see why a photographer would not want the GPS coordinates in their NEFs. Obviously, it should allow the user to disable it if he so wishes.

Ken, you might be surprised by how useful LV is. I was a doubter until I played with it on the D300.

As for movie mode, I was thinking of getting a P&S for the wife to do just that. Now I have an excuse to get a backup to the D300!

For those on the fence between the D90 or the D300, I can say that the ability to meter non-CPU lenses alone is worth the difference in price - to me. Not to mention other killer features such as 51 point AF and MLU (in two modes).

dpreview has a hands-on preview of the D90 here http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond90/

Is that it? Where is my AF-S 85 f/1.4G VR & AF-S 50-150 f/2.8G VR DX?

Shun... Did you check everywhere?

Please someone says Nikon will let me do videos with my (fast) MF lenses!

Berg,

The D90 image capture pixel dimensions are identical to the D300, 4288x2848

Dave - It is true that the image size is the same, the D90 sensor has a 12.9 megapixel DX-format CMOS sensor compared to the D300's 12.3 megapixel DX format CMOS sensor (according to the figures on dpreview.com)

The D300 offers the choice of compressed or lossless compressed raw files, and well as TIFF and JPEG. The D90 only offers JPEG and compressed raw (NEF). Does anyone know yet if the compressed raw of the D90 is lossless or lossy?

Berg, I just looked at dpreview and they list it as 12.3mp. You may have seen 12.9mp but that was obviously a typo.

Dave - The sensor format is shown in the first bullet under 'Nikon D90 Key Features' on this page.

Na, Berg, the sensors on the D90 and D300 are the same size. You're confusing actual pixels with effective pixels. That said, they don't have the same sensor if you're to believe Nikon's marketing claim that the D90 sensor is newly designed.

Nikon only puts the 10-pin connector on its prosumer and pro SLRs. Therefore, the F5 and F100 have it. Among DSLRs, only the D1, D2 and D3 families as well as D200 and D300 have it.

Apparently the new GPS unit GP-1 uses a special connector on the D90. To use it with the 10-pin connector, you need to add an adapter.

dunno about video and GPS, although some people will want those, but if its high ISO performance is closer to the D300 than the D80, could be a winner. the 4.5fps is a nice upgrade too.

18-105/3.5-5.6 AFS VR DX Another Dx lens at f5.6 - a real disappointment. Recent D700 users have to choose between heavy, expensive f2.8 zooms and plastic f5.6 Dx lenses - go figure.

Imaging-resource website mentions price of body only as $999 If this is not an error, this is really surprising. Givne that Canon's similar 50D is priced at $1399, I would expect nikon to be atleast about 1300-1400 range. My (little) disappointment is, it is not offering in-camera CA correction, which is nice feature of D300. I have seen the demonstration of this feature on some web sites and it is very impressive. Other than that the camera looks pretty cool.

Sounds to me like certain photographers were expecting the D90 to be a 'mini D300' rather than a new and improved D80. Regardless, the D90 is an exceptional value is will make many, many photographers very, very happy. But if you need the features of the D300, you will still need to invest in a D300.

Suhas, the 50D is competing with the D300, not the D90, feature wise. Except for its disappointing 9 point focus system, it looks to be a great camera (at least on paper). I doubt any Nikon users are going to buy it though. What would be the point?

I was really hoping for some updated primes. I have a sinking feeling after reading those 'announcements'.

Yes, updated primes are needed. But, on the plus side, Nikon has been very aggressive in releasing new products this year!

I wonder why they would introduce a model with video, but no autofocus in video mode and no metering (and presumably no video) with manual focus lenses. How exactly is one supposed to use this feature? It feels that Nikon rushed to bring out a new feature without thinking it through. Adding full support of manual focus lenses would make it easier to use. I suppose chipping is again going to be a hot service.

Good things are of course the in-camera motor and the fact that it takes a non-IR remote release, although I don't quite understand why they don't use the existing connector design, which would make easier to share accessories between cameras. And the high ISO performance and image quality in still photography is expected to be similar to the D300, which is nice, the price of high image quality has dropped considerably since winter ;-)

Any chance we finally have enough 18mm-whatever DX zooms??? I think that makes seven, eight if you count the 16-85VR.

I was kinda hoping the 18-105VR would be more like the 18-70 and less like the 18-135.

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/d90/en/d-movie/ shows some examples of the video capability. Looks great to my non-specialist eye. This may also push camcorder manufacturers like Sony to put in larger sensors in the video cameras.

As a night photographer, the main thing I'm interested in is low light performance. If this thing really can shoot cleanly at ISO 3200 without using a lot of heavy detail-killing noise reduction, I am definitely interested. I don't need fast framers per second, don't need GPS, won't use scene mode, don't need movie mode, and all my lenses are the best and most modern Nikon makes so I don't care about metering with old lenses. I am concerned about live view since I often photo in temperatures WELL below zero and battery drain is a problem. Live view can obviously be switched off though.

Is this camera revolutionary or merely evolutionary? My thinking it may be the former. The movie mode deal just might have put it in that category. Here's what it's going to shake down to for me. I like the compact size and lightweight of the D90. However, D300 prices are now $1,500 new. If that pushes prices of used ones down to $1,100 or so, I might go that route. I pick up mirror lock up and the CA reduction. I'll see what prices look like the first of November. That's when it starts getting dark earlier in the day and my nightly photo time starts to really take off. I've figured out that when it comes to buying digital cameras, patience is well rewarded, LOL!

Kent in SD

Perhaps the primes and mid-range FF zoom many have been wishing for will emerge next month in Koln.

Hi, What I am wondering is if the D90 will use the longer kit zoom (55-200) that I got with my D 40? I also have a Sigma 30mm 1.4 HSM that I hope will work with the new D 90 also. By working I do mean auto focus as well as metering. If this pans out to be true then I will be selling my D40 with the kit lens (18-55) and buying a D 90 in a couple of months when the Christmas specials pop out. Thank You for taking the time to read this and hopefully you will have a positive reply for me. phil

I'm still wondering just how big a market there is for lenses like a 28mm f1.4 and whatever. If you can shoot at ISO 3200, maybe Nikon is betting that's going to be good enough. I am a night photographer and f2.8 works for me most of the time, and that was with the D80 which I normally limited to ISO 800. There's always the possiblity they could come out with an 85mm and 50mm, but I think they would sell far more 24-105mm f4 VR or 70-200mm f4 VR type lenses. That said, the one lens I am eager to see appear is a 300mm f4 VR. That would nicely round out my lens selection. Remember, we still have Photokina to yet. Nikon could have kept something just for the show. Hopefully it's not yet another f5.6 DX zoom. LOL!

Kent in SD

Phil--

All the lenses you mention will work fine on a D90,

Kent in SD

The sample movies shot using the 85mm/1.4 is quite impressive. The shallow DoF has similar effects used in actual movies.

Here's the link

http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/d90/en/d-movie/

Do we know for sure that the D90 doesn't have CA reduction? I've not found a statement either way yet. It does seem to have vignetting control ala D700 so I'd have thought CA reduction might be there too.

Shame the sync. speed is no better than 1/200 - probably the same shutter as the D80.

Has it been confirmed that:

(1) manual focus lenses cannot be used to shoot view

(2) video is limited to 5 minutes at a time

(3) CA correction is not available

(4) how much video you can store per Gigabyte

What I like best about the D90: it doesn't make me regret having a D80.

"I'm still wondering just how big a market there is for lenses like a 28mm f1.4 and whatever. If you can shoot at ISO 3200, maybe Nikon is betting that's going to be good enough."

Well, when I think of fast lenses, I think of subject isolation as well as low light use. I can shoot at ISO 3200, but that means pushing the 1600 film one stop, and that not only makes it grainer, but is also more expensive to process.

I suspect Nikon is pretty much out of the prime business in both DX and FX lenses except for a few macros and maybe shift lenses, The new generations of photographer have grown up with zooms--they don't want to switch lenses any more than necessary. I would guess a majority of DSLR owners don't even have a prime lens. We can wish all we want but Nikon won't introduce a new lens if only a few people are gonna buy it. If Nikon did introduce new primes I wish they would make some specifically for DX--to take advantage of smaller size. How about an F1.8 24mm DX that would translate to a 35mm film lens?

"How about an F1.8 24mm DX that would translate to a 35mm film lens?"

Sounds good - but why DX? Make it FX and users of all Nikon cameras can enjoy using it. While they are at it, lets have an aperture ring too, please.

Hopefully Nikon has corrected the metering weaknesses that the D80 had, namely blowing out highlights and the matrix-spot tendencies. Same shutter as D80. Viewfinder improved, LCD improved, Expeed processing, higher megapixel count, better buttons, better multi-controller, info display, live preview, hopefully better high ISO performance. All in all, for $999, I expect the D90 to be as popular as the D80 was.

"I suspect Nikon is pretty much out of the prime business in both DX and FX lenses"

I've been feeling pretty much the same about Nikon and short-tele and standard prime lenses from some time now. Taking the current Nikkor line-up as a reference, it seems all we can expect is more DX zooms. Makes sense though, they are surely easier to design and manufacture (translation: cheaper), and you have a much bigger target audience. Surely the pros have all the prime lens they need, good luck those were mostly built to last

I suspect Nikon is pretty much out of the prime business in both DX and FX lenses except for a few macros and maybe shift lenses,

There is some irony in your "exceptions", considering that Nikon has introduced five such lenses just this very year. How come Nikon puts a 85/1.4 on the D3 to advertise the camera, if such lenses are not useful? They're tremendously useful precisely because of the high ISO performance of the camera, which together with f/2.8 and f/2 lenses opens up new options for photographers - to shoot in situations which could not be done at all previously. How come they advertise 200/2 and 85/1.4 in conjunction with the video mode of a mid-range DSLR, if such lenses are not useful?

If we're forced to use f/2.8 lenses, then what is the point of all this sensor development? The gain is zero effectively, since what is gained in the technology is lost because of inferior, ever slower lenses. What's the point of selling these bodies at such high cost then, since little has been gained in terms of what can be done in low light?

ISO 3200 has limited dynamic range and noticeable noise even on the D3. ISO 800 is much more suited to interior available light shots as the lighting in these situations is very contrasty, thus every bit of DR that can be gained can noticeably change how the image looks. I shoot my 28/2 and 35/2 wide open quite often, not because I want to, but because I've already gone to ISO 3200 and there's no other way to stop the blur from subject movement. At every indoor event I shoot, I have to go to the fastest apertures I have and still I end up at unbearably high ISO settings at the end of the day. A 28/2 is also about one third of the size and weight of the 24-70. That is a considerable advantage to me.

As far as the argument that the "new generation" of photographers grew up with zoom lenses ... uh, if you want to do something at the top level, you use whatever tools you need to get there. Ease of use is immaterial, only the end result counts. If someone somewhere does use e.g. manual focus prime lenses and gets better results because of it, what is the value of inferior work done for the sake of convenience? I do agree that the f/2.8 zooms are very convenient, in a way, and the quality is generally high for most applications. But they're basically swiss army knives which do everything to a decent level but for a lot of things they do not do at the top level. Available light photography with high contrast light happens to be one such application, for which they're sometimes useable and acceptable, but not inspiring in terms of the end results. If you shoot something for which there is no plan, use a zoom if you have to cover everything. If you do have a plan, and the light is low, then probably better results are obtained using primes. Even with today's cameras.

"The new generations of photographer have grown up with zooms--they don't want to switch lenses any more than necessary. I would guess a majority of DSLR owners don't even have a prime lens."

Nikon hopefully has a better sense of the demand for primes than I do, but I don't know that new photographers don't want primes. I notice that a surprisingly large subet of the other 20-somethings I see walking around with DSLRs have a 50mm lens attached. Most of my friends who have DSLRs also have 50mm lenses.

There are probably two reasons for this. Price is one: if you need a fast lens, most of the non-exotic telephoto primes are considerably less expensive than Nikon's f/2.8 standard zooms. If you're young and on a budget, but need a wide aperture, a 35, 50, or the 85 f/1.8, is a much more realistic purchase than the 17-55 or 24-70.

Secondly, when I'm photographing bands performing in poorly lit bars, clubs, and coffeehouses, and I can't use a flash, or don't want to use one, or when doing night-time street photography, or shooting available-light candids, there are times when I need to go below f/2.8. Having a camera that could I could use at higher ISOs would reduce, but not eliminate the number of times I'd open up to f/2 or f/1.4- I'd always want to be able to shoot in even less light. Moreover, I'd rather have the option of being able open up to f/1.4 or f/2, rather than being limited to f/2.8, and thus have more leeway to decide which tradeoffs (noise, depth of focus, motion blur, sharpness, chromatic aberration, etc) I want to make in setting aperture/shutter speed/ISO.

~Phillip

I think the 50mm is an exception - the 1.8 is just so affordable. The question is - how many have 85's on there (even the 1.8)? 180's? 24's? How many even have the Sigma 30, which does have HSM and will work even on the D40's and D60's?

That's where the demand curve gets interesting - anything other than the 50 1.8.

I suppose I could do all my non-wildlife shooting with the MF primes I still own - 20/4, 28/2.8 AIS, 50/1.8 and 105/2.5 (sold the 200/4 a while back) - on my DX bodies the 12-24 and 24-85 are just more convenient. The 2.8 zooms are great - and if one needs the large aperture, is willing to pay the price and cope with the weight, for FX the 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200 cover it all. Even on DX, the 17-55 and 70-200 will do the trick. Wouldn't it be nice to have some more moderately priced and lighter 15-50/4 AF-S X and 50-150/2.8 AF-S VR? Or how about a 70-200/4 AF-S VR - I'd happily trade my brick 80-200/2.8 for that one. Why keep the 80-200/2.8 AF-D in the line-up and not the AF-S non-VR version instead?

D90 - 4.5fps - and then a buffer that only holds 7 RAW images??? Will Nikon continue to produce the D200 - quite some head-scratching deciding between the two - especially now that they are equally priced.

GPS and video? For what? And what's with all of the corrected eyepieces? Am I to assume there is no diopter correction dial? That's asinine. Twelve bit instead of 14? Of the new crop of croppeds, this one looks the lamest.

If Nikon is getting out of the prime lens business, I have no doubt someone else will fill it. Zeiss seems to thin they can make a profit selling AIS compatible, high-$ primes.

I never discout the benefit of fast lenses in regards to depth of field control, AF and MF focusing ability, and viewfinder brightness. All of which are not enhanced by high ISO sensor performance.

I have the D80/D300 (and a D50 under the car seat for emergencies) and the new D90 doesn't give me that "gotta have it" feeling. Maybe it just doesn't seem revolutionary enough. I notice the D90 weighs slightly more than the D80 - any possibility it has a magnesium body? If the IQ matches the D300, as some say it does, then I just may have to have it!

I agree that the 50 is an outlier, especially the 1.8. It's a shame Nikon hasn't release an AFS one for D40(x)/D60 users who want autofocus.

I see 85s about an order of magnitude less than 50s- and they're always on Canon bodies. I've never seen a 180f/2.8 in the wild- it's probably my inexperience, but I'm a little hard-pressed to think of what it's useful for- it seems like it would be too long, too short, or too slow for many uses. Maybe some sports photography?

I think wider primes are a tough sell on APS-sized sensors- if you're using DX and want to shoot wide, there's a good chance that 24mm isn't wide enough. It would be interesting to know if Canon's sales of their 24mm f/1.4 increased after they released the 5D.

I rarely see anyone with the Sigma 30, although I suspect sales of it have suffered because of a reputation, deserved or not, for a large number of quality control issues. I've never used it, but it seems like almost every online discussion of it includes a subthread on the likelihood of getting a bad copy.

The presumably difficult choice for Nikon to finesse in investing in lens R&D and manufacturing is that lenses like a 24 or 35mm f/1.4 or a 50 or 85 f/1.2 are going to be expensive, niche items, but many of the people who want them, really, really want them.

~Phillip

Lenses like the 85m f1.4 are wonderful for the D3 user. And if you can afford the D3 you might be able to afford an 85mm f1.4. The problem is there aren't enough shootter who need or can afford that lens so the prices stays out of reach of the majority.

As to the F1.8 24mm DX suggestion--I specid=fically said DX because that lens would be considerably smaller and lighter than a 24mm f1.8 FX. That's one of the selling points of DX.

Last year a friend of mine bought a D80 w/ 18-135 f3.5-5.6 kit lens. He complained that my indoor pics looked so much better than his. I told him to spend $200 on a 50 f1.8 and SB-400 and bounce it. He says it's the best $200 he's ever spent and wondered why the 50 f1.8 and SB-400 weren't "part of the kit" since they're essential for indoor/low light pics he wants to take. The lesson I learned is that new photographers don't even know what a prime lens is but if you explain and show the benefits they're willing to buy and use them.

Ilkka is right though. Nikon introduced 3 PC/tilt lenses and updated the 400, 500, 600mm lenses with VR. The only prime lens I really wanted was a 60mm f1.4 DX "portrait" lens with good bokeh but FX allows me to go back to my 85 f1.4. A new 28 f1.4 and AF-s updates of the 35f2, 50f1.4/1.2, 85f1.4 would be nice but I've never complained about the speed of AF on these lenses. I usually don't need the MF override and I don't need to AF on a D40/D60 since I don't have one.

The jump from the D70s to the D80 was far bigger than the jump from the D80 to the D90, and even when the D80 was announced many people were saying it wasn't worth the upgrade from the D70s. I wouldn't recommend the D90 to any D80 users, it's just not a big enough improvement. But to D40/D40x/D60 users it may be, which seems to be a pretty small market. The Canon 50D, despite the higher price, does seem to have more to offer in this situation and may be a better bet. I know a couple D40 users at work who are looking at both cameras, and I think the 50D may be the better bet at this point.

GPS and video? For what?

The GPS allows your images to be searched in databases (e.g. in your own, or in microstock libraries) without having to laboriously document where they were taken. And for research it's invaluable as a support for documentation.

The video ... well if you can pay $17000 for the other APS-sized video camera with interchangeable lenses, by all means get the Red. But I do some theatrical and music photography and would love a low-light capable video camera. The consumer video cameras in this price class are ok for outdoors in good light but they are not good for a lot of indoor stuff - for that you need a camera with a bigger sensor - eh, like ... the name escapes me ... the D90. And I can't tell you how much I appreciate the compatibility with Nikkors though I will most likely wait for a model that also supports metering with manual lenses, at least if the video mode doesn't work without CPU in the lens at the moment.

I have no doubt that the D90 video mode has many limitations which would be annoying to the user. But it's a beginning and I am sure the camera will be popular and other manufacturers will follow. One of the reasons I can't get useful people images out of the 70-300 VR even on the D3 is simply that it creates images with too cluttered backgrounds. I am used to things like the 85/1.4 and the 180/2.8 and compose with the assumption that the background will be out of focus. I am sure this will help with video work also.

What is the 180/2.8 useful for? I use it for concert photography, portraits, landscapes, some sports etc. It is very compact for the FL and speed (half the size of the 70-200 basically). It has incredibly good image quality, especially compared with the f/2.8 zooms at this FL setting. It produces high contrast images without flare, unlike ... eh, the 70- 200. It has no corner vignetting problems like the 70-200. And it's very sharp even wide open. One of the best lenses I have. It's a bargain with great characteristics, just as the 50/1.8 is. Its only major drawback is that it doesn't have AF-S so it takes a bit more skill to use it in some situations.

As for the standard range f/2.8 zooms and their characteristics. The 24-70 is optimized for shooting at wide apertures and I get pronounced field curvature problems at f/8 at the wide end - where it is easily beaten by the 25mm Zeiss. I have never been able to get the 24-70 to show a single ghost - even when shot directly into the sun, but the images in such a situation are low contrast due to flare. Again, the best primes show high contrast, good image quality in such situations. There are many such situations where these PJ- optimized lenses are not quite up there. Whether you care about this is another matter, but there are people that do care.

I like the D90 (I'm a D50 user), it might be my next body... but that lens... another plastic mount slow standard zoom? I agree, I was hoping for something more like the 18-70 than the 18-135...

Does anyone know what software will be bundled with the D90?

Image is not the hard part with video. Sound is the hard part, so video means very little on a camera that doesn't have a jack for a microphone.

If I need another body next year I'm likely to go D90 rather than D300 for the same reason I went D80 rather than D200: weight.

And I will also doubt that paying twice as much will give me pictures that are twice as good :-)

One puzzle here is the seeming redundancy between the 16-85mm VR and the new 18-105mm VR, given the closeness of their focal lengths and max apertures and the fact that they each have VR. The 16-85mm is more expensive by about $200.

I see the D90 as a prosumer camera with the consumer in mind. Contrast that with the 50D.... which I see as a prosumer camera with the professional in mind.... maybe it's just me, but ergonomics aside, the 450D is the D90 competition, not the 50D... which I think is a direct knock on Nikon's D300 door...

...That being said, the D700 was more like a molotov cocktail through Canon's living room window.

I guess it's just the marketing road that Nikon chose to follow, but i'm surprised they don't have another model between the D300 and the D90 that also works to fill the 'starving student' niche as well as the 50D does. Remember... that starving student will likely someday be a (maybe) thriving professional... likely to stick with the brand they started with.

I thought that CA correction was a feature of Expeed Image Processing. If so then the D90 will have it.

It looks like a very interesting camera and one, once the price starts to drop, I may decide to upgrade to from my D40x. However I am very disappointed that it will not meter with my elderly, but excellent, manual primes.

"I guess it's just the marketing road that Nikon chose to follow, but i'm surprised they don't have another model between the D300 and the D90 that also works to fill the 'starving student' niche as well as the 50D does"

that would have been a break in company philosophy, david. the d80 followed the d70 just as the d300 followed the d200. so the d90 is right in line. the good news is that the body doesn't cost more, as it easily could have. that's aggressive marketing strategy, whereas introducing a new mid- point advanced amateur line doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you think about it logically. also nikon doesnt always compete directly with canon -- if you look at the respective product lines, they're more or less staggered at intervals, except at entry-level. plus, for nikon to directly target the 50d, they would have had to have had advance knowledge, which is a bit unlikely. quite possibly they were still grinning at the d700's assault on affordable FF territory.

considering that the d90 has some hand-me-down features from the d300, some gimmicks from the d60 and some new fangles of its own, i think it'll be fine for starving students (many of whom are ok now with their d40/d60/d70/d50s). that $300 they'll save on the cost of a body buys a lot of Top Ramen.

I'm so disappointed, why can't Nikon come out with some new lens' that aren't just more kit lens'. The 18-xx arena is already so filled, another lens is pointless, however, they have holes in the lineup that make no sense. 18-55 I 18-55 II 18-55 VR 18-70 18-135 18-200 16-85 18-105 Where people really waiting for THIS lens, another kit lens that has so many lens' to compete with. Nikon is confused, we need more lens' of the likes of the Canon primes: 24mm f1.4 28mm f1.8 35mm f1.4 50mm f1.2 85mm f1.2 100mm f2 The 85mm f1.4 AF is long overdue for an update, if not just an AF-S motor, I mean, Manual override, in a fast portrait lens is not too much to ask

Put me on the list for a few of the primes if they release them.

I had a D200 with the 17-55mm/2.8 and the Sigma 30mm/1.4, both great lenses, but the 30mm was on the camera 95% of the time. The Nikon zoom was nice but it was a beast by comparison, especially with the great big hood.

When I picked up my D700 I bought a 50mm/1.4 and am reasonably happy with it. The image quality is fine but it's not the quickest focusing lens, nor the quietest. And Ilkka is absolutely right, the 2-stops makes a difference with how a lot of people shoot.

So if Nikon brings out a high-end prime I'd pick the 50 and something wider. And if they don't I'll buy the Sigma 50mm/1.4 when it gets released in the Nikon mount and hope for more.

Will it be able to meter with all Ai-S lenses?

I am happy nikon announced 18-105 VR. If I am guessing correctly it should cost less then 18-200 VR.

I am in need of walk-around VR lens. 18-200 VR costs too much. I seldom use focal length more than 120 mm. 16-85 VR costs as much as 18-200 and is lacking in long end zoom for me.

So what else do I have? None....so this lens is perfect fit for me.

I am still waiting for 50-150/2.8. For DX, this is a perfect range.

I've been reading this thread with interest. (Incidentally, I think it's a good thread, with many helpful comments.) My position is that I'm a 'keen-ish amateur', with a D80, 18-70, 55-200, Tokina 12-24 and Nikon 35mm f2 AFD; having previously had an original D70.

I think the D90 is a good camera that will appeal to its target market a great deal, just as the D80 has to its market, in fact. The D80 has never garnered many headlines but I think it's been selling steadily, at least until the last few months: when first released it was perceived as '3/4 of a D200 for just over half the money'. Certainly I felt that I didn't need the features that the D200 had that the D80 didn't, so 18 months ago I was happy to go for D80. I don't whether or not the D90 actually is '3/4 of a D300 for just over half the money', but I'm sure many people will make decide that it is and buy it.

However I won't be one of them. It doesn't seem to be a compelling upgrade from a D80. I appreciate the things in it that have improved compared with the D80, and of course there are significant new things,e.g not only the vidoe mode but also live view. But none of these are enough to make me think that I want to put down a significant amount of money to upgrade. After all, my D80 hasn't got worse overnight! I'm probably more tempted by a D300 than a D90, but that's even more money. My decision is that I will skip the '12 Mpixel DX' generation altogether, and I shall take another look at what's new in a couple of years' time. In the meantime I shall continue to take pictures with the D80.

My decision is that I will skip the '12 Mpixel DX' generation altogethe

Ah, but Nikon seems to have stopped at 12 MP, they now have 4 DSLR models with that number of pixels and none above. Maybe they've decided that 12 is just right. ;-) Good for you though, will save a lot of money ;-)

"Will it be able to meter with all Ai-S lenses?

No, that's why there is a D200 and D300.

Fast primes: "I notice that a surprisingly large subet of the other 20-somethings I see walking around with DSLRs have a 50mm lens attached. Most of my friends who have DSLRs also have 50mm lenses."

I checked B&H a couple of days ago and was surprised to see both the import and US 50mm f1.4 lenses were "out of stock." Demand or lack of supply? I traded in my only Nikon zoom for fixed lenses when I realized that I always seemed to set the zoom around 50mm most of the time, or as wide as possible or as long as possible, and the 300mm long was never quite long enough. Too many people on the web are praising the benefits and price of the 50mm 1.8 and 1.4 lenes for younger zoom only digital photographers not to notice and give it a try for the price. For certain types of photography--esp. portraits, street scenes, and even landscapes--I cannot see why anyone would want to use a clumsy zoom lens with lower resolution and quality. How long does it take for younger photographers to figure out the qualityis better with fixed primes and you can use you feet most of the time to zoom in or out? Switching just two lenses--say a 24mm and 50mm--when the need arises is not much of a problem.