Tangerine, I'm pretty sure my friend with the 50D had the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM and he told me it cost him $1100AUD, whereas my other friend bought his Nikkor AFS 17-55mm f2.8 for $1200AUD, so it's only a $100 difference (both bought them second hand). I think even when it comes to the FX lenses, the prices are comparable. However I have no idea about the L series, only that they are very good, and I do agree that Canon has a better range of DX lenses.
Yes, ergonomics are entirely subjective but most people that I've talked to, both Canon and Nikon users, agree that Nikons feel better in the hand and have more intuitive controls.
I have no intent to incite a multi page debate about Nikon vs Canon because both are good (I came very close to buying a 5D MkII) but in this case I just think a D90 is better and cheaper, because as you said, "for most people the cost could well be a significant consideration."
I agree there is no point to having a "religious war" between Canon and Nikon, and in any case I am not firmly in either camp; last round I went for the D60 over the 450D, and next round I am leaning towards either a used 40D (may have a line on a good deal) or a 50D. The introduction of the 7D is likely to cause some lightly used 50Ds to appear on the market.
If I was buying Nikon again, the D300s is the one I'd be looking at... but that is more than I want to spend now. I don't doubt that the D90 is very nice.
Buying secondhand lenses can definitely equalize or invert any price hierarchy that exists in the retail/discount market. Prices I have seen for new lenses put the Nikon lenses a little to a lot higher, but that's only strictly applicable to buying new.
Team Nikon I have failed you, but I tried my best LOL
Nah, you didn't fail, but you did tip your hand.
Last edited by a moderator: