Hasn't the video got something like a 30 sec limit or have I misheard? Still, Spielberg was never going to worry, and if it is 30 secs, then youtube and certain sites of an adult nature may end up with more postings!

If I were to choose, I'd go for the better build D300 anyway.

The video (HD 720p 24fps) tops out at 5 minutes maximum. There's a good reason for this, and to quote Nikon at a recent press conference, "Tax".

That makes more sense than it might seem, but essentially if the camera was capable of longer recordings then its primary function many not be deemed as a 'stills camera', which may push it into 'video camera' tax bracket and, moreover, mean the name would probably need a re-think for the purposes of trading. 

Thanks for that explanation Mike.  It makes sense.

There is another bonus for this short-form video that many seem to be missing. Lots of stills news photographers are getting endless requests to supply video footage too. I can see many putting this in the camera bag as a back-up camera that also keeps the video-demanding editor sweet.

Now you just need somthing to capture audio too. I'd recommend the M-Audio MicroTrack, the Marantz PMD620 or the Edirol R-09 (I use the Marantz PMD620 with its internal mics for interviews and its bigger brother - the PMD660 - with a Beyerdynamic MCE58 and a pair of Sony MDR-7506 headphones to master on... and then edit on Audicity back at home).

Alan Sircom - Editor wrote (see)

Now you just need somthing to capture audio too. I'd recommend the M-Audio MicroTrack, the Marantz PMD620 or the Edirol R-09 (I use the Marantz PMD620 with its internal mics for interviews and its bigger brother - the PMD660 - with a Beyerdynamic MCE58 and a pair of Sony MDR-7506 headphones to master on... and then edit on Audicity back at home).

The D90 records mono sound too (when in video mode). Though you could support with a proper recording system and sync later if it was entirely necessary. 

The thing I spent ages playing with was that most stills cameras with video options auto expose - the D90, by default, does the same. However - and this is where it gets good - you can use the AE lock to fix an exposure, which can make for some more sophisticated use.

This is great news on a DSLR.  Thanks for all the info Mike. 

Look forward to your review, but I have seen the advert and it looks pretty impressive but then it is an advert, and your review will be more hands on and less biased.

Flippin 'eck...Can I put my name down for the first give away one please..Ok it may be a way off yet but just remember...I WAS FIRST....!

Sharon

D-90 lacks:

Needs better sensor than D-300 needs less noise more MPs than 12 say 16MP+

D-90 is not good has same bad D-80 meter!!!

Video who cares?

I want better colors like Jpeg XR

More MPs

Less noise

James Christie wrote (see)

Very impressive specs........but a bit of a kick in the teeth to those who have (like myself) recently picked up a D300! Ouch!

I find them different cameras - I've tried to outline this in a section of the D90 Review - on the 2nd page there's a D90 vs D300 section.

Doug Harper wrote (see)

D-90 lacks:

Needs better sensor than D-300 needs less noise more MPs than 12 say 16MP+

D-90 is not good has same bad D-80 meter!!!

Video who cares?

I want better colors like Jpeg XR

More MPs

Less noise

Sensor's the same size as the D300 sensor - though it's newly developed. This means it's not worse than the D300, which is very good anyway. Sure, there's no resolution increase - but at this level it doesn't really need it. It'll happen in the near future, I'd wager that Nikon will be looking to a higher resolution (in light of Sony's 24.6MP full frame Exmor in the a900). 

I'm starting to find the 'more megapixels, less noise' call just a bit hackneyed now. Let's unpack the statements and have a closer look:

More megapixels... why? If we imagine a simple 12MP sensor - 4000x3000 pixel spread. At 300dpi, that's larger than a 10x13" print. At 240dpi, it's more than 12x16"... and I defy someone to spot the difference between a 300dpi and 240dpi print at a normal viewing distance (looking through a linen tester doesn't count). I'm not suggesting that 12MP is somehow 'magic' and we need not advance beyond this level, but the simple fact remains that sales of final prints and paper all suggest that the bulk of printed photographs wouldn't stress a 3MP camera. I still get images published that have been taken on a 4MP Nikon D2H, because art editors demand an image 1,500 pixels across the longest axis in many cases.

Less noise... is always a good thing, but we already have less noise than ever before. Cameras launched today have lower noise than anything made even two years ago. Sensors and processing has improved immeasurably in recent years. We now have a situation where 'unacceptable' noise at 1,600ISO would have been considered 'remarkably noise free' in, say, 2005. Today, it's possible to have a DSLR with essentially no noise below about 1.600ISO and compacts with noise-free images at 400ISO and below. Anything that underperforms on those limits gets criticised for having too much noise. With the pace of development, these no-noise limits will likely increase by half a stop or more next year. 

But is something that has a small amount of noise at 1,600ISO really 'noisy'. Let's put this into historical perspective. We are getting annual improvements in image noise that took decades to realise in the 20th century. The first 'high speed' black and white film was Kodak Tri-X, originally rated at 200ISO when first launched in the early 1950s. Practical 400ISO black and white became possible in the 1960s, but aside from push-processing, anything faster remained an unattainable dream until films like Ilford XP1 appeared in the early 1980s. Anything over about 1250ISO we had to wait until TMZ or Delta 3200 arrived. Even then, we had to make do with anything over 3200ISO having grain like golf balls. 

There is a paradigm shift in the thinking of people with respect to noise. Unless it is a deliberate effect (grain used to 'antique' an image, for example) it is unacceptable. What was perfectly OK in film at 200ISO is now rejected at 1600ISO. Is this a good thing, or unreasonable expectations based on the improvements that have gone before. I was recently stunned by the images taken of Murray beating Nadal at the US Open... not because of the seeming impossibilty of someone beating Nadal, but the fact that acceptible pictures were possible at on a late September night. If that semi-final had taken place two years ago, those photographs would have been 'unacceptably' noisy; if it had happened anything more than a decade or so ago, there wouldn't be any pictures at all.

That's how far we've come.  We've pushed and continued to push the noise boundary with each successive product launch in most cases. And we've got blazé about it...