# Nikon D90 for general family portrait business?



## gryffinwings (Sep 10, 2012)

I currently have a D5100, I've seen this camera used for portraits at businesses. I was wondering if the D90 was still good enough, I tried one out and found that I like it a lot more, I've got more than enough lens, so I would have no problems parting with the kit lens with it.

I will eventually get into doing portraits and family photos for people as a side job, that is why I am asking, a lot of my photography will be done when the light is good, during late afternoon, until I can get light modifiers.

If I do go after a D90, I'll be getting a used one.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 10, 2012)

If you have good lenses and proper lighting gear, the d90 is just fine


----------



## gryffinwings (Sep 10, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> If you have good lenses and proper lighting gear, the d90 is just fine



Look at my signature for what lens I have currently. I already have a pretty decent flash, so that's not a problem, I might have to obtain a diffuser of some kind for it though.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 10, 2012)

gryffinwings said:
			
		

> Look at my signature for what lens I have currently. I already have a pretty decent flash, so that's not a problem, I might have to obtain a diffuser of some kind for it though.



You might also want to consider a few off camera flashes and stands with shoot through or reflector umbrellas.


----------



## Mach0 (Sep 10, 2012)

What do you like better about it ?


----------



## gryffinwings (Sep 10, 2012)

Mach0 said:


> What do you like better about it ?



The ability to fully use the Nikkor-Fisheye 10.5mm lens, which I plan to buy one day, and it requires an in camera focus motor. Other things I like better is the viewfinder is definitely bigger than my D5100s viewfinder, it feels a bit better in my hands, I like how the implemented the focus indicators in the viewfinders.


----------



## Mach0 (Sep 10, 2012)

gryffinwings said:
			
		

> The ability to fully use the Nikkor-Fisheye 10.5mm lens, which I plan to buy one day, and it requires an in camera focus motor. Other things I like better is the viewfinder is definitely bigger than my D5100s viewfinder, it feels a bit better in my hands, I like how the implemented the focus indicators in the viewfinders.


Unless I'm missing something-
The 10.5 2.8 dx is a AF-S lens. It's a 10.5 2.8G.  Unless I'm misreading.


----------



## gryffinwings (Sep 10, 2012)

Mach0 said:


> gryffinwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The 10.5mm fisheye does not incorporate SWM technology all it has is ED and CRC (close range correction), it is an AF lens not AF-S, which requires an in camera auto focus motor.

http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Produ.../AF-DX-Fisheye-Nikkor-10.5mm-f%2F2.8G-ED.html


----------



## Mach0 (Sep 10, 2012)

gryffinwings said:
			
		

> The 10.5mm fisheye does not incorporate SWM technology all it has is ED and CRC (close range correction), it is an AF lens not AF-S, which requires an in camera auto focus motor.
> 
> http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2148/AF-DX-Fisheye-Nikkor-10.5mm-f%252F2.8G-ED.html



The reason why I ask--- g lenses have no aperture ring.... AKA not screw drive. Every screw drive lens I have seen has an aperture ring. Like this 





I'm not familiar with this lens but this pic says other wise for SWM...

Keep in mind. I have a d90.... I just would hate for you to be misinformed...


----------



## SCraig (Sep 10, 2012)

The biggest issue is that the D90 does not have great high-ISO performance and you don't have any fast lenses.  Shooting in less than great light might push you into relatively high ISO with some accompanying noise.  I seldom use my D90 at ISO 800 or above because I have to deal with a good bit of noise.  MY D7000, which has the same sensor as the D5100 I think, is about 2 stops better than my D90.


----------



## Mach0 (Sep 10, 2012)

Mach0 said:
			
		

> The reason why I ask--- g lenses have no aperture ring.... AKA not screw drive. Every screw drive lens I have seen has an aperture ring. Like this
> 
> <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=19934"/>
> 
> ...



Second thought- Amazon had the description wrong. I read the reviews.


----------



## gryffinwings (Sep 10, 2012)

Mach0 said:


> gryffinwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



G-lens merely means that you has no aperture ring and the aperture is controlled inside the lens, this does not pertain to how the lens focus, 2 separate things.

This will explain things better I think. Scroll down to where it talks about Auto-focus.

Nikon 10.5mm Fisheye


----------



## gryffinwings (Sep 10, 2012)

Actually I know when to shoot, it's not like I plan to shoot in low light and I do have a good flash, which isn't a problem. My 35mm f/1.8 is my fast lens, it's pretty good, and I do have a tripod, so no problems there.


----------



## Mach0 (Sep 10, 2012)

SCraig said:
			
		

> The biggest issue is that the D90 does not have great high-ISO performance and you don't have any fast lenses.  Shooting in less than great light might push you into relatively high ISO with some accompanying noise.  I seldom use my D90 at ISO 800 or above because I have to deal with a good bit of noise.  MY D7000, which has the same sensor as the D5100 I think, is about 2 stops better than my D90.



1/3 stop better high ISo but 2 EV more dynamic range.


----------



## SCraig (Sep 10, 2012)

Mach0 said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nope, it's more than 1/3 stop in ISO.  The noise at ISO 400 on my D90 is about like the noise at ISO 1600 on my D7000.  Maybe ISO 1200 but most assuredly more than 1/3 stop.


----------



## Mach0 (Sep 10, 2012)

gryffinwings said:
			
		

> G-lens merely means that you has no aperture ring and the aperture is controlled inside the lens, this does not pertain to how the lens focus, 2 separate things.
> 
> This will explain things better I think. Scroll down to where it talks about Auto-focus.
> 
> Nikon 10.5mm Fisheye



I know that but this was my first time seeing a screw drive dx lens lol.


----------



## Mach0 (Sep 10, 2012)

SCraig said:
			
		

> Nope, it's more than 1/3 stop in ISO.  The noise at ISO 400 on my D90 is about like the noise at ISO 1600 on my D7000.  Maybe ISO 1200 but most assuredly more than 1/3 stop.



Unfortunately, never tried it. I can only go off of several reviews. However, I'm siding with you on one point. If the OP has a d5100, I wouldn't bother getting a d90 for AF on a fisheye.


----------



## SCraig (Sep 10, 2012)

Mach0 said:


> Unfortunately, never tried it. I can only go off of several reviews. However, I'm siding with you on one point. If the OP has a d5100, I wouldn't bother getting a d90 for AF on a fisheye.


Understood.  But I have both cameras in my camera bag and I know how they behave.  There is just no comparison in the high-ISO performance of the two.


----------



## Mach0 (Sep 10, 2012)

SCraig said:
			
		

> Understood.  But I have both cameras in my camera bag and I know how they behave.  There is just no comparison in the high-ISO performance of the two.



I had to do some reading up on it. Numbers don't lie buttttttttt what I did read was the QUALITY of noise was a big improvement. Yes..' it's still 1/3 stop.  But the improvement chroma noise is much better ....
It's a wash for me. I don't shoot that often in challenging light situations... If I did, I would just get a d700. Lol


----------



## SCraig (Sep 10, 2012)

Not interested in a D700 or any other full-frame camera.  Well, that's not true either.  I wouldn't mind having one but I doubt it would get used a great deal.  I like the apparent extra reach an APS-C sensor give me.

All I can tell you is that I NEVER shoot above ISO 800 with my D90 because the noise is unacceptable to me, and I seldom get above 400 if I can help it.  With my D7000 I don't think twice about using ISO 1600.

This is with my D7000 at ISO 1600, probably cropped some.  The noise isn't just "Better", it isn't there.  I would never have even considered that shot with my D90.


----------



## Mach0 (Sep 10, 2012)

SCraig said:
			
		

> Not interested in a D700 or any other full-frame camera.  Well, that's not true either.  I wouldn't mind having one but I doubt it would get used a great deal.  I like the apparent extra reach an APS-C sensor give me.
> 
> All I can tell you is that I NEVER shoot above ISO 800 with my D90 because the noise is unacceptable to me, and I seldom get above 400 if I can help it.  With my D7000 I don't think twice about using ISO 1600.
> 
> This is with my D7000 at ISO 1600, probably cropped some.  The noise isn't just "Better", it isn't there.  I would never have even considered that shot with my D90.



I must have a good copy lol. Plus I expose to the right. I have gotten excellent results up to 2000 ISO and 3200 I've gotten decent results. I've even got a few 6400 iso that was ok with a good deal of noise reduction. But I'm using fast glass( not saying you aren't) so I see a difference so
I'm able to get sharper pics at faster shutter speeds at those ISO's. Its the noise in the shadows that drive me nuts to be honest hence my ETTR. I know copies vary from one to another so like I mentioned- I must have a good one.
Nice cat shot.


----------



## SCraig (Sep 10, 2012)

Mach0 said:


> I must have a good copy lol. Plus I expose to the right. I have gotten excellent results up to 2000 ISO and 3200 I've gotten decent results. I've even got a few 6400 iso that was ok with a good deal of noise reduction. But I'm using fast glass( not saying you aren't) so I see a difference so
> I'm able to get sharper pics at faster shutter speeds at those ISO's. Its the noise in the shadows that drive me nuts to be honest hence my ETTR. I know copies vary from one to another so like I mentioned- I must have a good one.
> Nice cat shot.


Yes, you must have gotten a better copy than I did and no, my lenses are not that fast.  Most of my photography is nature, specifically birds and wildlife, so most of my lenses are on the long side.  The fastest I have is a 17-70, f/2.8-4.  Even exposing to the right in halfway decent light I've never been able to get acceptable results at ISO 2000 on my D90.  I've never even bothered to try 3200.  Maybe it's time for a refurb 

The cub is a Clouded Leopard and was about 3 months old when I shot that, I think.  If he grows into those enormous feet he will be a huge one to!


----------



## gryffinwings (Sep 11, 2012)

I think I've pretty much convinced myself that I'd prefer the D90 over my D5100. Now gotta figure out how to trade it or sell I guess.


----------



## Mach0 (Sep 11, 2012)

gryffinwings said:
			
		

> I think I've pretty much convinced myself that I'd prefer the D90 over my D5100. Now gotta figure out how to trade it or sell I guess.



Keep both... D90's have dropped so much. I got mine from adorama early this year and I got it for around $700 refurb with 100 clicks on it. I did it for the return policy and warranty but if you don't want to go that route- there's other options. The price has dropped significantly. I've seen them in the $500 range.


----------



## Maneef (Sep 11, 2012)

D90 will just be fine for portraits as only lens matters most.


----------



## TheLost (Sep 11, 2012)

IMHO, you should do everything you can to get better glass first, worry about the body 2nd.

If it was me... and i was trying to make money doing portraits.. i'd sell all your current lenses and pick up a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 and a Nikon 70-200mm VR1.

When all the dust settles between your D5100 and D90 choice... your still going to be using kit lenses.


----------



## shadowlands (Sep 11, 2012)

D90 is excellent for you needs. I still shoot with mine. I make money with mine. I have not even outgrown my D90 yet.


----------



## gryffinwings (Sep 11, 2012)

Thanks for the information so far, at the moment I'm not sure what to do yet, if you guys can offer me further information/guidance for my particular usage, that would be great.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 11, 2012)

gryffinwings said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > If you have good lenses and proper lighting gear, the d90 is just fine
> ...


Your lenses aren't really very good They're consumer grade with the exception of that 35. I'd stick with your D5100 and buy a couple of good portrait lenses. Probably the 35mm prime  And the 85mm prime. 

Your D5100 is the same sensor as the D7000 with a few limiting factors in the body. You have half of what you want there and the important half at that.


----------



## gryffinwings (Sep 11, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> gryffinwings said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



Why do you think that my lens aren't good enough? it's not like I'm going to be doing available light portraits, the 18-70mm lens although labeled a kit lens is actually quite good, better in my opinion than the 18-55mm. Just because the f-stop of a lens isn't a low number doesn't mean it can't be used for what I'd like, I'd likely get the results I want with the camera and lens I have with appropriate lighting for the place I'm going to take pictures at.

Someone please explain to me why my lens are not good enough or our good enough, honestly my 55-200mm lens would be a good portrait lens at the short end, I find the bokeh to be very pleasing to my eyes, that is if I want to have any in the photos.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 11, 2012)

gryffinwings said:


> Actually I know when to shoot, it's not like I plan to shoot in low light and I do have a good flash, which isn't a problem. My 35mm f/1.8 is my fast lens, it's pretty good, and I do have a tripod, so no problems there.



The DX 35mm 1.8 is not a good portrait lens... it IS a wide angle, and that means distortion! (not to mention the CA it produces). If you are only wanting to shoot full length shots... and stay at least 12-15 feet from the subject, it might be ok.. but any head and shoulders shots will typically show obvious distortion (enlarged noses, eye, forehead, etc..). It also lacks the IQ associated with a true portrait lens.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 11, 2012)

They aren't quality glass that is going to produce the sharpness that is key in professional work. 

Taking a step back in the sensor in order to use one lens that is not exactly desirable in most portrait photography for a portrait photography pursuit makes total sense.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 11, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> They aren't quality glass that is going to produce the sharpness that is key in professional work.
> 
> Taking a step back in the sensor in order to use one lens that is not exactly desirable in most portrait photography for a portrait photography pursuit makes total sense.



^ This! You lack a suitable body and lenses for any serious work... although the MWAC phenomenon has proven that people will buy almost anything if the price is right.


----------



## gryffinwings (Sep 11, 2012)

Ok, here's another question, have you even tried to test these lens? What exactly sharp enough for an outdoor or indoor setting. I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just asking you to explain yourself in more detail, I've read plenty of reviews stating that the lens I have even though they are consumer lens, that they are pretty good, I've actually gotten pretty good results with the lens and camera I have. Maybe it's just me but I'm having trouble understanding your vague explanations.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 11, 2012)

Has nothing to do with outdoor or indoor setting. It has to do with sharpness, period. It's not vague at all. Sharpness. Nothing to do with f/1.8 or 1.2 or 2.8 at all. It's about the clarity and sharpness you will get from good glass and not get from cheap glass.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 11, 2012)

Google MTF! Here is a start!   and some Lens Reviews also: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/?category=lenses&order=brand

Understanding resolution and MTF

MTF

Dpreview launches lens reviews: Digital Photography Review

Understanding Photodo's MTF graphs, numbers and grades


----------



## Mach0 (Sep 11, 2012)

OP... While I own the 35 1.8, it gets the least amount of use. I have all the lenses you have minus the 18-70. I barely touch them. Sure they will look sharp stopped down but the most used lens for me is a 50 prime and 35/70 2.8. Glass is a big deal. Try renting some. You would see a big difference in compared to your kit lenses.


----------



## TheLost (Sep 12, 2012)

gryffinwings said:


> Ok, here's another question, have you even tried to test these lens? What exactly sharp enough for an outdoor or indoor setting. I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just asking you to explain yourself in more detail, I've read plenty of reviews stating that the lens I have even though they are consumer lens, that they are pretty good, I've actually gotten pretty good results with the lens and camera I have. Maybe it's just me but I'm having trouble understanding your vague explanations.



I'm assuming those reviews are from Ken Rockwell... amiright?

There are many tiers/levels/grades of lenses.  What you have is the bottom tier/level/grade.  That's not a bad thing.. however, there IS a very large difference in quality (image, build, color, contrast) between your lenses and top tier/level/grade lenses.


----------



## gryffinwings (Sep 12, 2012)

TheLost said:


> gryffinwings said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, here's another question, have you even tried to test these lens? What exactly sharp enough for an outdoor or indoor setting. I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just asking you to explain yourself in more detail, I've read plenty of reviews stating that the lens I have even though they are consumer lens, that they are pretty good, I've actually gotten pretty good results with the lens and camera I have. Maybe it's just me but I'm having trouble understanding your vague explanations.
> ...



Actually, I was looking at these

Nikkor DX 55-200mm VR tested with Nikon D80 full review Cameralabs introduction

and

55-200mm AF-S DX and DX VR Lens Review by Thom Hogan

I don't typically go to Ken Rockwell for reviews after I had read some things about him, not a fan.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 12, 2012)

gryffinwings said:


> TheLost said:
> 
> 
> > gryffinwings said:
> ...


I fail to see in there where there is any mention of professional grade sharpness. In fact, it says the opposite. It's a good, entry level lens for a casual shooter who isn't discriminating on the sharpness.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 12, 2012)

You can take a look at lenses and their sharpness here.
Remember that most lenses are soft wide open and are best stopped down about 2 stops.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 12, 2012)

or here:  DxOMark - Camera Lens Database


----------



## gryffinwings (Sep 12, 2012)

Thanks for the links, I'll check them out.


----------



## TheLost (Sep 13, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Remember that most lenses are soft wide open and are best stopped down about 2 stops.



My Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 is so sharp at f/2.8 i fall more in love with every shutter click...  Good thing i live in Utah and can have two wives (legally, im not sure one can be an inanimate object though.. i may have to move to Montana for that).


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 13, 2012)

TheLost said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > Remember that most lenses are soft wide open and are best stopped down about 2 stops.
> ...



I agree... 70-200 2.8 ROCKS the world!!     Nope.. not Montana.. that would be Oklahoma!


----------

