The D90, as expected . . .

. . . The replacement for the D80 will be called the D90, as expected.
Curiously, at a casual glance the only thing that most people will notice
different from a D80 is the presence of a much bigger color LCD on
the back. Indeed, most of the controls look pretty much the same
(though the buttons are round now) and are in the same place on the D90
as they were on the D80. However, there are a few odds and ends that
catch your notice on closer examination.

One being a microphone, but it's not there to duplicate the D3
experience.

For the rest of the expected and unexpected (including a new VR
kit lens) see http://bythom.com/

"ASAAR" wrote in message
...
. . . The replacement for the D80 will be called the D90, as expected.
Curiously, at a casual glance the only thing that most people will notice
different from a D80 is the presence of a much bigger color LCD on
the back. Indeed, most of the controls look pretty much the same
(though the buttons are round now) and are in the same place on the D90
as they were on the D80. However, there are a few odds and ends that
catch your notice on closer examination.

One being a microphone, but it's not there to duplicate the D3
experience.

For the rest of the expected and unexpected (including a new VR
kit lens) see http://bythom.com/


I expect the 16~85 VR is the upgrade option.

Wait until you see the 12.5 megapixel Canon 40D+ and the 5D mk.II to be
announced soon.

On 2008-08-06 06:39:38 -0700, "No Spam" said:


"ASAAR" wrote in message
...
. . . The replacement for the D80 will be called the D90, as expected.
Curiously, at a casual glance the only thing that most people will notice
different from a D80 is the presence of a much bigger color LCD on
the back. Indeed, most of the controls look pretty much the same
(though the buttons are round now) and are in the same place on the D90
as they were on the D80. However, there are a few odds and ends that
catch your notice on closer examination.

One being a microphone, but it's not there to duplicate the D3
experience.

For the rest of the expected and unexpected (including a new VR
kit lens) see http://bythom.com/


I expect the 16~85 VR is the upgrade option.

Wait until you see the 12.5 megapixel Canon 40D+ and the 5D mk.II to be
announced soon.

What is it with the 5D Mk II, anyway? Canon seems to be taking forever
to bring this camera to market. I swear, it seemed like Nikon and Canon
were playing the "No, really, you go first. After you" game. Well,
Nikon finally caved and put the D700 on the table. Can we see Canon's
entry now?

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

No Spam wrote:
"ASAAR" wrote in message
...
. . . The replacement for the D80 will be called the D90, as expected.
Curiously, at a casual glance the only thing that most people will notice
different from a D80 is the presence of a much bigger color LCD on
the back. Indeed, most of the controls look pretty much the same
(though the buttons are round now) and are in the same place on the D90
as they were on the D80. However, there are a few odds and ends that
catch your notice on closer examination.
One being a microphone, but it's not there to duplicate the D3
experience.

For the rest of the expected and unexpected (including a new VR
kit lens) see http://bythom.com/


I expect the 16~85 VR is the upgrade option.

Wait until you see the 12.5 megapixel Canon 40D+ and the 5D mk.II to be
announced soon.






If they haven't been announced yet, how do you know they exist?

--

visit www.D-Mac.info
to relieve the tension...
Usenet is after all Usenet!

"D-Mac" wrote in message
...
No Spam wrote:
"ASAAR" wrote in message
...
. . . The replacement for the D80 will be called the D90, as expected.
Curiously, at a casual glance the only thing that most people will
notice
different from a D80 is the presence of a much bigger color LCD on
the back. Indeed, most of the controls look pretty much the same
(though the buttons are round now) and are in the same place on the D90
as they were on the D80. However, there are a few odds and ends that
catch your notice on closer examination.
One being a microphone, but it's not there to duplicate the D3
experience.

For the rest of the expected and unexpected (including a new VR
kit lens) see http://bythom.com/


I expect the 16~85 VR is the upgrade option.

Wait until you see the 12.5 megapixel Canon 40D+ and the 5D mk.II to be
announced soon.


If they haven't been announced yet, how do you know they exist?


Ask me again in 30 days

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 14:49:48 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:
: On 2008-08-06 06:39:38 -0700, "No Spam" said:
: Wait until you see the 12.5 megapixel Canon 40D+ and the 5D mk.II to be
: announced soon.
:
: What is it with the 5D Mk II, anyway? Canon seems to be taking forever
: to bring this camera to market. I swear, it seemed like Nikon and Canon
: were playing the "No, really, you go first. After you" game. Well,
: Nikon finally caved and put the D700 on the table. Can we see Canon's
: entry now?

Maybe the 1D Mk III fiasco is still fresh in their mind. A couple more months
of pre-release testing might have saved them a good deal of embarrassment.

Bob

On 2008-08-06 19:06:32 -0700, Robert Coe said:

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 14:49:48 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:
: On 2008-08-06 06:39:38 -0700, "No Spam" said:
: Wait until you see the 12.5 megapixel Canon 40D+ and the 5D mk.II to be
: announced soon.
:
: What is it with the 5D Mk II, anyway? Canon seems to be taking forever
: to bring this camera to market. I swear, it seemed like Nikon and Canon
: were playing the "No, really, you go first. After you" game. Well,
: Nikon finally caved and put the D700 on the table. Can we see Canon's
: entry now?

Maybe the 1D Mk III fiasco is still fresh in their mind. A couple more months
of pre-release testing might have saved them a good deal of embarrassment.

Bob

I always thought that 'fiasco' was overblown, though. OTOH I might be a
little fussy if I had paid $8,000 for a camera. Now, if you want
fiasco, we could talk about the guys who spent $450,000 for a new
Cessna Turbo 206 Stationair a few years ago, only to be confronted with
a series of crankshaft airworthiness directives... IIRC the California
Highway Patrol was one of the unhappy customers. Somehow my own plane
managed to miss all those ADs, although serial numbers on both sides
managed to get hit by them. Mine was not a turbo model, which helped a
lot. (I never could figure out why people were spending $100,000 more
for a turbo'd plane that carried 30 pounds less than its conventionally
aspirated brother and went maybe 10 knots faster and burned more fuel
and had higher maintenance costs to boot.) That was one sweet airplane.
You could trim it for hands-off flying and it would hold altitude and
attitude without any help at all from the autopilot. I should never
have sold it. It is flying for an agricultural company in the
Philippines now, so I suppose I will never see it again. sigh Oh
well, what with the price of fuel nowadays I probably would be trying
to sell it anyway. The thing burned 15 gph on a good day and they
aren't particularly fast. The Stationair was well named. :-)

Not that I have been flying much lately anyway. The airport is an hour
away and instruction hardly pays for my gas to get there. The problem
with student pilots is that they are invariably poor. If they aren't
when they start out, they soon will be... :-)

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

C J Campbell wrote:
On 2008-08-06 19:06:32 -0700, Robert Coe said:

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 14:49:48 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:
: On 2008-08-06 06:39:38 -0700, "No Spam" said:
: Wait until you see the 12.5 megapixel Canon 40D+ and the 5D mk.II
to be
: announced soon.
:
: What is it with the 5D Mk II, anyway? Canon seems to be taking forever
: to bring this camera to market. I swear, it seemed like Nikon and Canon
: were playing the "No, really, you go first. After you" game. Well,
: Nikon finally caved and put the D700 on the table. Can we see Canon's
: entry now?

Maybe the 1D Mk III fiasco is still fresh in their mind. A couple more
months
of pre-release testing might have saved them a good deal of
embarrassment.

Bob

I always thought that 'fiasco' was overblown, though. OTOH I might be a
little fussy if I had paid $8,000 for a camera. Now, if you want fiasco,
we could talk about the guys who spent $450,000 for a new Cessna Turbo
206 Stationair a few years ago, only to be confronted with a series of
crankshaft airworthiness directives... IIRC the California Highway
Patrol was one of the unhappy customers. Somehow my own plane managed to
miss all those ADs, although serial numbers on both sides managed to get
hit by them. Mine was not a turbo model, which helped a lot. (I never
could figure out why people were spending $100,000 more for a turbo'd
plane that carried 30 pounds less than its conventionally aspirated
brother and went maybe 10 knots faster and burned more fuel and had
higher maintenance costs to boot.)

The 12000 foot higher service ceiling maybe?

Regards

Tony

On 2008-08-07 00:27:04 -0700, Vagabond ""no_one\"@
n o_where.net" said:

C J Campbell wrote:
On 2008-08-06 19:06:32 -0700, Robert Coe said:

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 14:49:48 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:
: On 2008-08-06 06:39:38 -0700, "No Spam" said:
: Wait until you see the 12.5 megapixel Canon 40D+ and the 5D mk.II to be
: announced soon.
:
: What is it with the 5D Mk II, anyway? Canon seems to be taking forever
: to bring this camera to market. I swear, it seemed like Nikon and Canon
: were playing the "No, really, you go first. After you" game. Well,
: Nikon finally caved and put the D700 on the table. Can we see Canon's
: entry now?

Maybe the 1D Mk III fiasco is still fresh in their mind. A couple more months
of pre-release testing might have saved them a good deal of embarrassment.

Bob

I always thought that 'fiasco' was overblown, though. OTOH I might be a
little fussy if I had paid $8,000 for a camera. Now, if you want
fiasco, we could talk about the guys who spent $450,000 for a new
Cessna Turbo 206 Stationair a few years ago, only to be confronted with
a series of crankshaft airworthiness directives... IIRC the California
Highway Patrol was one of the unhappy customers. Somehow my own plane
managed to miss all those ADs, although serial numbers on both sides
managed to get hit by them. Mine was not a turbo model, which helped a
lot. (I never could figure out why people were spending $100,000 more
for a turbo'd plane that carried 30 pounds less than its conventionally
aspirated brother and went maybe 10 knots faster and burned more fuel
and had higher maintenance costs to boot.)

The 12000 foot higher service ceiling maybe?

Regards

Tony

Ah, there you have it. Well, actually, 11,300 feet higher. 15,700 feet
vs. 27,000. With 62 fpm better climb at sea level. And built-in O2. I
will allow that if I was a bush pilot flying out of, say, the Frank
Church Wilderness that a turbo would be a lot more attractive. But for
CHiP traffic enforcement and surveillance?

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor