D90

I think I am not going to get another DSLR any time soon (well there is no but, I still think I am not going to get another DSLR). D90 is like a glorified D80 with video capacity. Or a dumbed down D300 with video. Not that it is bad or anything it's just that it is kind of bland. I was not too excited when it was first introduced last year. Then I got the video bug and I started to look into the Canon HV30 and the current HV40. With the HV models one would have to get an adapter in order to use any SLR 35mm lens to create that dreamy shallow depth of field. The HV40 retails from $799 to $999. And a refurbised HV30 costs close to $500. I have already a handful of Nikon glasses but still it's a sizable outlay considering I also need to upgrade my desktop should I really go ahead to edit HD. Then there is the Nikon D90 which readily uses any Nikkor lenses I already have. I am sure there are differences between shooting a camcorder and using DSLR for video capture. Then I read from NikonRumors that a feature by the name of Reverie was shot entirely in D90. And the cinematographer even came up with a paper to explain how he came about choosing the D90 as opposed to picking the seemingly better specs Canon 5DMkII model, full frame sensor and full 1080p HD for two. Considering most broadcasts either do 720p or 1080i, the 720p that the D90 offers is actually not half as bad. I mean a good video, other than good quality, the editing and story are just as important if not more so. The D90 looks more attractive to me now.