Currently, you can get an excellent condition D90 for about $ 170, without the lens. A D7100 runs about $460 and the D7200 for about 100 more. My D90 came with the 18-105 mm & 70-300 mm lenses. All work fine. Used them with my D7100 and now with my D500. D90 was much simpler to use and the file sizes were manageable. As long as you understand the D90's limitations as compared to the newer cameras, it's still an excellent camera. Very good video.
Hey Charles, great content. This was my 1st DSLR & I really liked it. The only reason I sold it, was to go to a D7000. Had a love hate relationship with that because of it's unreliable AF, but sensational sensor). Now, the D90 had a setting called Dynamic area. Here I used to select the 9 point option & I found it worked for me. I have an image of a seagull swooping in to steal a fish from a local fisherman. The resultant image was the gull, fish in beak, with the local in the frame to the side. The AF in this mode was fast enough & accurate enough, to give me a sharp photo.
The D90 was a camera ahead of its time compared to other makes, like Canon or Sony. I had the D70s, D80, D7000, D7100, D750 FX, D5500, D7500, D500, D90 and now I own the Nikon Z6II
Hey Charles! Just stopped to comment since you had a question about the aperture with the D90 and the 200-500. As a former D90 user who has tried the same combination, I was frustrated at first too! But after checking some online forums, I found out that due to a lack of "communication" between the newer 200-500 lens and the older D90 body, the aperture cannot operate beyond the base value. So you will be stuck with f5.6 in this case (It's not too bad really!)
Thanks for the info! Yes! After I did the video I did contact Nikon and they mentioned the same thing. doesn't really worry me as I shoot at f5.6 all the time.
I have had a d90 from new in 2010 and bought the 70-300 vr later the same year both are still going well 14 years later although I use the 70-300 now on a d7000 I bought about 10 years ago and this combination has taken some great wildlife shots and as you say the af is much improved on the d7000 & later .
Thanks for sharing, yes, the D90 was a great camera in its heyday, but the D7000 really brought Nikon into a new age as far as auto-focus goes for their crop-sensored cameras.
Hi Charles i have my old d80 paired with the 70-300 and like you say know the limitations and you can get good results. Love my d7500 with the 200-500. I photo birds mainly and the animals. Not a people photographer.
I came across this video at the PERFECT time, as I have a Nikon D90 that I have been using for bird photography for the past year (with a Nikkor 18-200mm secondhand lens) and I REALLY want a more powerful zoom lens. I didn't think that pairing the D90 with a 70-300mm would be a big enough change, and I was almost ready to buy the Nikon 200-500mm lens (used). I do understand that the 200-500mm lens is "technically" not compatible with the D90 (meaning that the diaphragm will stay wide open on the D90, which, as others have pointed out, might not be an issue). But my bigger concern now is...would I be better off getting a BETTER and newer camera body along with a longer telephoto lens? My main interest is in wildlife photography, especially birds, but my budget is limited. What USED combo (camera body and lens) would have the best bang for the buck, as a step UP from my current set-up? Any advice would be appreciated!
Okay, I didn't have an issue with the aperture being fixed at f5.6 on the D90, has 90% of my wildlife photos are taken at f5.6. A slightly used D7200 wuld be a big improvement on the D90 and the D7200 is very good at high iso
@@CharlesNPhotography THANKS! As I mentioned on another one of your videos, I ended up deciding to get a D500 (used, at a good price) with which I'll be using a Nikon 200-500mm lens (also purchased used). I can see that you have a LOT of videos here which I need to watch to help me learn the D500, especially as it relates to bird/nature photography! Thanks for educating us!
Thankfully I swapped my D90 for a D300S. It's way superior AF and buffer. Way higher battery life and toughness also. It's the DX boss of its age, during the D90 age. Paired with a Tamron 150-600 G1, on my way for excellent bird shots, even BIF won't be a big problem with its superior AF and 8FPS with a super big buffer. Anyone wants to shoot wildlife on a budget, get a D300. It's legend compared to the D90. Way better.
I had both & both are good. Yes, the D300s has better build, better AF & better buffer with a higher frame rate. That said, the D90 can also do wildlife & action. If you can't get great shots with the D90, then you shouldn't blame the camera. I actually found the noise in the D90 to beat that of the D300s. And the AF was not that bad. In fact, my D90 had more consistent AF than my D7000. Pity Nikon never released a D400 (D300 body type & specs, but with a D7000 sensor). That 16mp sensor was a gem.
Thank you Charles for a great information filled video. At a recent yard sale I picked up an almost mint Nikkor AF-S 300mm F4 and a Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 along with a 2x Nikkor teleconverter (all circa 2010) . Was look for a compatible body. You just helped an old fart make up his mind. Yes, I'm into wildlife photography currently on Sony. Thanks mate
The D90 and D3200 are very different cameras, The D3200 is very much an entry level dslr, where the D90 is more of the photographer how what more advance features on their camera. Personally I would chose the D90 over the D3200, unless I was just after a point and shoot camera
I'd say D90 & here's why. It has a built in AF motor, so any lens without a built in motor will still focus on the D90. It won't on the D3200. Also, the D90 has a built in transmitter, so you can fire external flash off camera. Of course for weddings, I'd look at Full Frame, but I don't know your budget
You can't compare a 500mm prime lens with a variable zoom lens. A prime lens will most likely give you better results. But you're limited to that focal length.
The D90 is great, but they aren't worth more than $200-250. In the $400 price range, a D7100 is a much better buy, and useable with the 200-500mm. I got three for around $420 apiece, one for my daughter and two more for myself.
Currently, you can get an excellent condition D90 for about $ 170, without the lens. A D7100 runs about $460 and the D7200 for about 100 more. My D90 came with the 18-105 mm & 70-300 mm lenses. All work fine. Used them with my D7100 and now with my D500. D90 was much simpler to use and the file sizes were manageable. As long as you understand the D90's limitations as compared to the newer cameras, it's still an excellent camera. Very good video.
Thank you so much for sharing this information, and I agree understand the limitations of the D90 and you'll get great photos
Hey Charles, great content. This was my 1st DSLR & I really liked it. The only reason I sold it, was to go to a D7000. Had a love hate relationship with that because of it's unreliable AF, but sensational sensor). Now, the D90 had a setting called Dynamic area. Here I used to select the 9 point option & I found it worked for me. I have an image of a seagull swooping in to steal a fish from a local fisherman. The resultant image was the gull, fish in beak, with the local in the frame to the side. The AF in this mode was fast enough & accurate enough, to give me a sharp photo.
The D90 was a camera ahead of its time compared to other makes, like Canon or Sony. I had the D70s, D80, D7000, D7100, D750 FX, D5500, D7500, D500, D90 and now I own the Nikon Z6II
Hey Charles! Just stopped to comment since you had a question about the aperture with the D90 and the 200-500. As a former D90 user who has tried the same combination, I was frustrated at first too! But after checking some online forums, I found out that due to a lack of "communication" between the newer 200-500 lens and the older D90 body, the aperture cannot operate beyond the base value. So you will be stuck with f5.6 in this case (It's not too bad really!)
Thanks for the info! Yes! After I did the video I did contact Nikon and they mentioned the same thing. doesn't really worry me as I shoot at f5.6 all the time.
I really enjoy your videos. Practical and informative. *subscribed*
Awesome, thank you!
Ive been thinking of getting a D90 for just these reasons, great video
Good choice!
I have had a d90 from new in 2010 and bought the 70-300 vr later the same year both are still going well 14 years later although I use the 70-300 now on a d7000 I bought about 10 years ago and this combination has taken some great wildlife shots and as you say the af is much improved on the d7000 & later .
Thanks for sharing, yes, the D90 was a great camera in its heyday, but the D7000 really brought Nikon into a new age as far as auto-focus goes for their crop-sensored cameras.
Thanks for this, very interesting!
Glad it was helpful!
Hi Charles i have my old d80 paired with the 70-300 and like you say know the limitations and you can get good results. Love my d7500 with the 200-500. I photo birds mainly and the animals. Not a people photographer.
Absolutely, and thanks for sharing
I came across this video at the PERFECT time, as I have a Nikon D90 that I have been using for bird photography for the past year (with a Nikkor 18-200mm secondhand lens) and I REALLY want a more powerful zoom lens. I didn't think that pairing the D90 with a 70-300mm would be a big enough change, and I was almost ready to buy the Nikon 200-500mm lens (used). I do understand that the 200-500mm lens is "technically" not compatible with the D90 (meaning that the diaphragm will stay wide open on the D90, which, as others have pointed out, might not be an issue). But my bigger concern now is...would I be better off getting a BETTER and newer camera body along with a longer telephoto lens? My main interest is in wildlife photography, especially birds, but my budget is limited. What USED combo (camera body and lens) would have the best bang for the buck, as a step UP from my current set-up? Any advice would be appreciated!
Okay, I didn't have an issue with the aperture being fixed at f5.6 on the D90, has 90% of my wildlife photos are taken at f5.6. A slightly used D7200 wuld be a big improvement on the D90 and the D7200 is very good at high iso
@@CharlesNPhotography THANKS! As I mentioned on another one of your videos, I ended up deciding to get a D500 (used, at a good price) with which I'll be using a Nikon 200-500mm lens (also purchased used). I can see that you have a LOT of videos here which I need to watch to help me learn the D500, especially as it relates to bird/nature photography! Thanks for educating us!
Thankfully I swapped my D90 for a D300S. It's way superior AF and buffer. Way higher battery life and toughness also. It's the DX boss of its age, during the D90 age. Paired with a Tamron 150-600 G1, on my way for excellent bird shots, even BIF won't be a big problem with its superior AF and 8FPS with a super big buffer. Anyone wants to shoot wildlife on a budget, get a D300. It's legend compared to the D90. Way better.
I agree, but the D300s is more expensive and I was showing people what you can do with a budget camera
I had both & both are good. Yes, the D300s has better build, better AF & better buffer with a higher frame rate. That said, the D90 can also do wildlife & action. If you can't get great shots with the D90, then you shouldn't blame the camera. I actually found the noise in the D90 to beat that of the D300s. And the AF was not that bad. In fact, my D90 had more consistent AF than my D7000. Pity Nikon never released a D400 (D300 body type & specs, but with a D7000 sensor). That 16mp sensor was a gem.
Thank you Charles for a great information filled video. At a recent yard sale I picked up an almost mint Nikkor AF-S 300mm F4 and a Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 along with a 2x Nikkor teleconverter (all circa 2010) . Was look for a compatible body. You just helped an old fart make up his mind. Yes, I'm into wildlife photography currently on Sony. Thanks mate
Glad I was able to give you a guiding hand 😉
I use it on a d5600
Good one
is better d90 or Nikon d3200,300 ...
The D90 and D3200 are very different cameras, The D3200 is very much an entry level dslr, where the D90 is more of the photographer how what more advance features on their camera. Personally I would chose the D90 over the D3200, unless I was just after a point and shoot camera
Sir, which is batter nikon d90 or d3200?
It all depends what type of Photography you are doing.
Wedding, party etc
Not wildlife type..
Then what is batter for me?
I'd say D90 & here's why. It has a built in AF motor, so any lens without a built in motor will still focus on the D90. It won't on the D3200. Also, the D90 has a built in transmitter, so you can fire external flash off camera. Of course for weddings, I'd look at Full Frame, but I don't know your budget
What are you doing with your hands and why?
I suffer from stress and my hands shake when I'm tired.😰
Is it Nikon 200-500mm really 500mm?
Does anyone compare with 500mm prime lens?
You can't compare a 500mm prime lens with a variable zoom lens. A prime lens will most likely give you better results. But you're limited to that focal length.
هذه كاميرا رائعة. أريد ذلك.
Thank you
D90 is still a very capable camera imo
It certainly is still a very good camera
Nikon 200-500 is poorly constructed. Mine locked up at 500mm and will only work wide open. Switched to Sony for the 200-600.
I've never had a problem, but do know of people who had had issues, but Nikon have fixed them even when the lens was out of warranty.
What you expect from made in China...
The D90 is great, but they aren't worth more than $200-250. In the $400 price range, a D7100 is a much better buy, and useable with the 200-500mm. I got three for around $420 apiece, one for my daughter and two more for myself.
In Australia the going price is about $300 and this D90 is in excellent condition and also included the 50mm f1.8, so I was happy o pay the money