is a D90 worth it??

F

FUBARFilms

Active member
Loaded question I know, but I have an interesting situation...I'm a filmmaker but I consider myself a talented amateur photographer as well. I currently own an HVX and Canon Rebel XT for photography. While my HVX has been good for getting commercial work, I've come to be very frustrated by the flat look of the 1/3" chip when doing more artistic projects.

I'm seriously interested in picking up a D90 and a good lens. Not only does the movie mode interest me for the DOF but for the great low-light capability since I'm going to be shooting a short film that takes place mostly at night outdoors with very little light. I've done some research but I'd like to hear directly from some D90 owners before I move forward on a few concerns I have.


-I know about the AE issues right now, however I am curious- say you want something backlit, would the camera try to expose for the backlit subject or can you set what area the AE exposes for?

-How does the footage look when shooting a well lit set and subject.

-How exactly would is the compression, I understand it isn't DVCPRO HD...but how does it compare to say HDV? On that note, does anyone have experience doing FX work or color grading on the footage?

-What kind of lenses would you recommend to get the best out of it?

Anything else would be GREATLY appreciated in helping me make up my mind. This camera isn't something I NEED to have but if the pros outweigh the cons it would be a great upgrade for both my still work and for film work.
 
Last edited:
No...not since the D5M2 came out. As good as the D90 is, the Canon is redefining. Both have issues. However, 25Mb/s MPEG2 can't touch 40Mb/s MPEG4.
 
DavidNJ said:
No...not since the D5M2 came out. As good as the D90 is, the Canon is redefining. Both have issues. However, 25Mb/s MPEG2 can't touch 40Mb/s MPEG4.
Click to expand...

I agree, partially. The 5DM2 is still far from perfect. So in the end, you'll be paying 3 times the price for almost the same flaws, and for a camera that, while certainly better, is not 3 times better. Those video DSLRs are very cool to use, and can produce stunning images, but are beasts on their own. For me, it was for experimentation and personal projects, so I took the cheaper D90. For some, the 5D is being incorporated in professional workflows, and can justify the extra expense.

One thing is for sure, no matter wich one you choose, you'll have to stay with the HVX for a while.
 
A few of us are shooting features with our D90's. I'm yet to do any lighting setups with mine. So far I've just been shooting with available light and outdoors with good results.

Go for nikon prime lenses if you want to get the most out of the D90. A 50mm f/1.4 is a must for low light or a 50mm f/1.2 if you can afford it.

You're going to need to stabilize it. I use a steadytracker extreme which I'm very happy with, others are using shoulder mounts.

The m-jpeg compression varies from 8-25 Mbits/sec. LIke DVCPro it's a variable bitrate intraframe algorithm but is more heavily compressed. It's probably equal to or a little better than HDV.

Whether or not the D90 suits really comes down to the subject matter you want to shoot. If you want a gritty 16mm or super8 look then this is your beast. If you want a really clean sharp 35mm look then you'll have to wait for nikon to bring out a firmware update with less compression or a new model D???

I considered shooting my feature on a HVX/HMC but when the D90 came out I chose it for it's film-like shallow depth of field and low light capability.

It's worth it, particularly for artistic work and is great for stills too.
 
The compression isn't anywhere near hdv. The fact that it's intraframe is good but the bitrate is lower than hdv which is a twice as efficient codec being interframe, so the "quality" is about half of hdv, if that means anything. The quantization tables are good at avoiding mosquito noise but it gets a bit soft and quite blocky quickly. I think it's ok, especially if you're not afraid of adding some (or a lot of) noise for dithering, or use advanced noise reduction for a cleaner look (which i'm not a big fan of myself since it just looks processed).
 
mattsand said:
The compression isn't anywhere near hdv. The fact that it's intraframe is good but the bitrate is lower than hdv which is a twice as efficient codec being interframe, so the "quality" is about half of hdv, if that means anything. The quantization tables are good at avoiding mosquito noise but it gets a bit soft and quite blocky quickly. I think it's ok, especially if you're not afraid of adding some (or a lot of) noise for dithering, or use advanced noise reduction for a cleaner look (which i'm not a big fan of myself since it just looks processed).
Click to expand...
Keeping in mind that HDV is compressing more pixels 1440x1080 and has a constant bit rate of 25Mbits/sec. A CBR algorithm being less efficient than a VBR algorithm.

To replicate the look of film I prefer the true 24 m-jpeg frames over HDV.....I just wish nikon would push up the bit rate to say 50Mbits/s. Surely it's on the cards for the D???
 
The compression, and resolution are, so far, the biggest drawbacks of the D90, even with it's lack of manual controls.
 
Well. Hdv can also be 720p, comparing different resolutions is hard, plus the vbr on the d90 works "backwards". It doesn't increase the bitrate when needed, it decreases it when not needed, it would be much better if it used all the bits available even for low complexity scenes. Constant quality encoding is the worst vbr scheme there is, it saves space but doesn't increase the quality.
 
As for what's worst, my vote is for the rolling shutter and consequently the rolling under artificial lighting and the jello. That's what's been limiting me the most. The image quality is low but ultimately completely predictable.
 
mattsand said:
As for what's worst, my vote is for the rolling shutter and consequently the rolling under artificial lighting and the jello. That's what's been limiting me the most. The image quality is low but ultimately completely predictable.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess you're right. Jello first of all... :p
 
To get back to the original question--is the d90 worth it--

I felt it was for several reasons.

First, as an HDV shooter (Sony V1) the d90 let me get a feel for big glass and narrow DOF that would have required a much bigger investment to simulate using 35mm adapters (Letus/etc.).

Second, while the Canon may give a somewhat better image, it is still so compromised that I didn't feel it was worth over 3 times the investment. It will be a lot easier for me to move up from the $850 d90 next year to an improved Nikon body than part with a $3,000 Canon body. Both dSLR's are stop-gap measures while we wait for the much less compromised versions in the next few years. Nikon is in the best position to give us a good body quicker as it does not have to worry about canabalizing a high-end video business--it doesn't have one. Canon has to be careful not to hurt its video division.

Third, the lenses and accessories that I am purchasing will come with me as I move up to a better body. Most of my investment will be preserved.


Fourth, I didn't have a dSLR yet--and the d90 is an excellent dSLR.

So as long as you look at the d90 as a step in the right direction, that is very useable within its limitations, you will not be disappointed.

Hope this mix of tech and philosophy helps!
 
what does worth it even mean? just do the math, how many projects are you planning on using it for, and how many days, before you get tired of it, it breaks, or becomes obsolete, then calculate how much it would cost to rent a camera for the same time, compare, et voila the answer should be clear. you can use the exact same calculation for any other cameras you're considering. the 5d might be usable for more projects and might last longer in the competition, but three times as many or three times as long? an hvx for example will probably work the longest, but if you need shallow dof it can't be used for as many projects, and so on. it's really quite simple.

this said i got a d90 because i think it's really cool. :) same reason i got my super 8 cameras as well as my hv20. when i need better stuff, which is most of the time, i rent it.

/matt
 
Robert Altman said:
...
- the d90 let me get a feel for big glass and narrow DOF that would have required a much bigger investment to simulate using 35mm adapters.

- Second, while the Canon may give a somewhat better image, it is still so compromised that I didn't feel it was worth over 3 times the investment. It will be a lot easier for me to move up from the $850 d90 next year to an improved Nikon body than part with a $3,000 Canon body. Both dSLR's are stop-gap measures while we wait for the much less compromised versions in the next few years.....

- Third, the lenses and accessories that I am purchasing will come with me as I move up to a better body. Most of my investment will be preserved.

So as long as you look at the d90 as a step in the right direction, that is very useable within its limitations, you will not be disappointed.
...
Click to expand...

That´s it. I agree completely...
 
If it gets you off the boards and out shooting your masterpiece so you can come back here and share it with us: then yes, it's damn well worth it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top