gantt wrote:If this is New, I'm wondering why it comes with a "90 Day Woot Limited Warranty" and not a Nikon USA warranty. I thought a 90 Day Woot Limited Warranty usually accompanies refurbished products.

I was wondering the SAME thing!

MichXelle wrote:A great question. I hope the photography guru's have some answers.

Here's a site I use frequently for info and found this for those thinking of getting one of these: http://digital.photorecommendations.com/recs/2009/08/why-i-love-the-d90/

justinrageth wrote:dont worry, canon is great. I have the t2i and love it..but i wannna get a 7d!

Thanks, glad to hear, I'm loving it so far too and plotting all the new lenses to buy. Although, I will admit saying to myself "why didn't you buy the Nikon," lol. Once you take the plunge you're pretty much stuck with one brand if you start buying glass.

Seems like there's newer better cameras out there for less. Take a look at Ken Rockwell's review. I always use his site when looking for info on nikon merch. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d90.htm

I don't normally post on here but yeah, I agree with others about saving up a little bit more and getting the D7000 over this. Sure there is a bit more learning curve but its not that difficult.

If not already invested in Nikon gear, I'd also consider the Pentax K5 or the new K5 II. The Pentax limited lenses are killer.

As much as I'd like to have a dSLR like this (especially at a discounted price), I'd have to pass. Still an amateur amateur photographer (still use the automatic setting), and I haven't had the desire to even take out my point-and-shoot camera, so this one would just sit back and collect dust most likely.

That, and I'm short of cash. If this was below 500 (And you still had some left at this point), I'd gladly get one. ):

Sage97 wrote:I don't normally post on here but yeah, I agree with others about saving up a little bit more and getting the D7000 over this. Sure there is a bit more learning curve but its not that difficult.

If not already invested in Nikon gear, I'd also consider the Pentax K5 or the new K5 II. The Pentax limited lenses are killer.

Yes, I agree. I would save up and buy either a D5100, D7000, or the Pentax K5 II. You can buy a Pentax K5 for about $800 body only if you look hard enough. That was the camera I wanted until I got my D5100.

The D5100 takes great pictures even in low light. If I had some extra cash back then I would have gone with the d7000 only because it has AF fine adjustment for the lens and an AF motor, but I realize the AF motor isn't a big deal.

I just ordered a d800e and am keeping the D5100 around as a 2nd camera. it's light (no af motor) and takes very good pictures.

You want a camera that supports the latest sdxc format. I have 64GB and 128GB cards and I never worry about running out of space anymore and I shoot in RAW+JPG FINE.

Cameras are NOT an investment. Not at all, esp digital cameras. The lenses can be considered an investment, but definitely not the cameras.

If you're a technical person, get a camera you can grow into. I outgrew my d5100 and that is why I'm getting the d800e.

Right now, the cameras I would consider is: D600, D800/D800e, K5, K5 II, K5 II2, canon 5DM3 (yes).

Oh about the lens, the 18-105mm is a good lens. Much sharper than the 18-55 from what I understand.

Gary

johnbelletti wrote:You can get this from Amazon much cheaper. Come on WOOT! You can do better than this.

Show me the link !

Ninkumpoop wrote:That is the same camera, much cheaper lens. Here is the comparable camera and lens: http://www.rythercamera.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=30971 $769, much better deal to get the 18-105 lens.

Edit: The linked retailer does appear to be selling "gray" market items. You'll receive the camera, but don't expect much assistance if you need warranty help.

Where do you see that it's not from USA?
Edit: I read another post and saw the explanation about needing a Nikon USA warranty for repairs.

saltlakecityty wrote:While the D90 is a great camera, I think everyone looking should be asking themselves that same question. I've used the D80, D90, D5100, and D7000 and the D7000 is the best of the bunch by far. Just spend a few hundred more and get a camera you'll absolutely love for years to come. I wouldn't be disappointed with a D90 if that's what you can afford but if you get a chance to play with a D7000 afterwards you'll definitely feel a bit lusty.

I agree I used to buy cameras appox every 5 years. My last one was a D70. I waited and waited for the D7000 passing up on the D90 when it came out. Im glad I waited on the D7000 it will join the ranks of my other Nikons.

Free shipping and cheaper at http://www.primotronix.com/tron/product_info.php?csv=gg&products_id=17288

kaatochacha wrote:I've got this camera, got it a few years ago, GREAT camera! I think I paid something similar for it back then, perhaps a little bit more. Nothing but pleased.

I agree its a great camera. I have one too.

Back then I paid $1,100 for the body alone so this is a great deal!

is this gray market? and is that why the warranty is from woot and not from nikon? kinda skeptical now!

If you have any brain your your skull, you'd put your hard earned money into a Sony NEX-5N. It's not your grandmothers Cyber Shot.

I have the 5N and my wife has the NEX-7. They are jaw dropping quality and just amazing cameras. The sensor is ridiculous and it blows any entry/mid range DSLR (tank, not portable) out of the water.

pochoazul wrote:IMO you are over-construing the word "investment"

"Over-construing"?

I think you are misusing the word "investment".

alucard454 wrote:this is indeed a cheapie plastic mount lens.

i do have this cheapie lens, but only because it came free with another lens that i ebayed a while back. my wife and I have shot probably 5k exposures with it, just to try it out.

i've only used it once on a paid gig, and ended up getting almost zero keepers from that lens/camera setup. i changed it out after a couple hundred exposures though, so no real harm done.

and if you do get one elsewhere, do yourself a favor. skip this kit lens, save some cash, and pick up the sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 OS. absolutely fantastic walkabout lens for a real person, and i've even shot a few thousand pro photos with it. many "real" photographers will tell you to skip the kit lens and buy the little $100 50mm 1.8 prime lens, and it IS a fantastic bargain, but most real people want to be able to zoom at least a little bit, most of the time.

I still got a hand me down D70 and a Nikkor 18-70 3.5-4.5. Can't use any of my prime lens anymore since they are all Canon FD's, whether my 50mm 1.4 or 24mm 2.0. (note, I wasn't going to buy a DLSR until its resolving power was as good as film, which is around 25mp for a 35mm camera).

I do see the recent increase in ISO speed, which is a good thing, since when I had my 5mp Oly C5050, the biggest gripe with digital cameras was its low light sensitivity even though it had a 'lighting fast' f1.8-2.6. I can't push the ISO to ISO 4000 like film. But for close to 10 years after that, all the camera mfg cared about was megapixel and superzoom, never about lens speed or low light sensitivity (why would a P&S need 16mp?) I am glad, at least the sensitivity issue is being addressed. But that seem to be also a reason to make as slow lens as possible, just enough for the phase detection autofocus to work.

radi0j0hn wrote:So put you money into quality LENSES, which will probably fit the camera body of choice for quite a few years (unless the company dumps the mount for urgent technical reasons, as Canon did with the old FD mount.)

I have all my FD lenses sitting there gathering dust, including many fast ones. And there were no technical reason since the breech mount was technically superior to all bayonet mounts, especially now there are electrical contacts involved.

lwang wrote:I still got a hand me down D70 and a Nikkor 18-70 3.5-4.5. Can't use any of my prime lens anymore since they are all Canon FD's, whether my 50mm 1.4 or 24mm 2.0. (note, I wasn't going to buy a DLSR until its resolving power was as good as film, which is around 25mp for a 35mm camera).

I do see the recent increase in ISO speed, which is a good thing, since when I had my 5mp Oly C5050, the biggest gripe with digital cameras was its low light sensitivity even though it had a 'lighting fast' f1.8-2.6. I can't push the ISO to ISO 4000 like film. But for close to 10 years after that, all the camera mfg cared about was megapixel and superzoom, never about lens speed or low light sensitivity (why would a P&S need 16mp?) I am glad, at least the sensitivity issue is being addressed. But that seem to be also a reason to make as slow lens as possible, just enough for the phase detection autofocus to work.

I heard the resolving power as good as 35mm film was at 8MP so we went way beyond that years ago unless you're talking big plate film .

Gary