I have a Nikon D300 with the Nikon 18-200 VR, but deciding between either the P90 or the Nikon 70-300mm VR

I love the 18-200mm VR but need just a little bit more zoom range. I can spend $500 for the additional lens (Nikon 70-300VR) or spend $100 less and get the P90. I know that the D300 with the 70-300mm VR will produce sharper images, but my question is this? How much sharper? As much as I love my D300, there are times where I don't like all the bulk. If I thought the image quality between the P90 and D300 with the 70-300mm VR at 200-300mm was pretty close, then I would go for the P90. What do you think?

I am far from a professional, and the meager amount of information you'll be able to glean from my ramblings is undoubtedly minimal, but my P90 shoots very sharp images at full zoom (I only use optical zoom, not digital, I HATE digital.). I'm sure the 300 will, as you already stated, produce the sharper images of the two. I may be dead wrong about this, but I think (thinking not being my greatest strength) that the P has greater magnification than the 300mm lens. Please tear me apart if that's incorrect. It would not be at all a bad thing to have a P90 to accompany your D when possible, or to temporarily stand in for it when not. It takes very nice pictures in a vast variety of situations, and would likely add a nice dose of flexibility to your photography that would otherwise require a whole team of Nikkors and a strong back. Hopefully this was somewhat helpful, but it's just as likely that you just wasted about 30 seconds on incoherence at its finest. If it was the former, excellent, but if it was the latter, I sincerely apologize. In any case, I wish you the best of luck in your decision. Take it easy.

Interesting because other members of this board have hated their P90 experience and have flat out returned it. Frankly, keep the D300 and invest in the 70-300 lens. Or, you could save that $100 and go with a Sigma. They're making great glass these days.

I for one don't understand what people complain about with the P90. I have only read of one or two cases where that happened, so it's not as though there is a mad rush of angry consumers swarming their electronics shops and casting their dreaded P90s to the floor in disgust. I would assume that since this is a place where people can find advice for problems that they are having, the ones who are having problems are here, while the individuals having no issues are most likely out happily using their cameras. And since there are very few people complaining about having to return them, logical thinking would dictate that there is a very high probability that the number of people enjoying them is far greater. I'm only here trying to get the whole picture and learn more about cameras in general, and while I may not be any sort of professional and not as knowledgeable as Mr. DeRuvo, I feel it is also my obligation to give an alternate experience to people who may shy away from what is indeed a fine camera because they read of one or two poor experiences that certainly only represent an exceedingly minimal percent of the user population. Unless Nikon has only sold three P90s, one to me and one to each of the two people who were disappointed, please don't damn a perfectly good camera on such controvertible evidence. But I suppose if that is indeed the case, then by all means, don't bother with a camera that has obviously given only a 33% satisfaction rate. Then again, you or Mr. DeRuvo may find absolutely no validity whatsoever in my opinion, in which case please disregard the preceding statements.

3sgte - you're opinion is just as valid as anyone elses here. You offer it to help, to participate in this community, and from personal experience, you offer some good insight.

In the end, no matter the camera, there will always be some that hate it, some that look to a blind eye over shortcomings, and then those who read the manual, experiment beyond the automatic settings, and get the most out of the camera they buy.

But most often, the one's who don't like it, either haven't given it enough time, or have overly high expectations. But there are some models, like the P80 before it, which had their issues.

While the P90 may take good pictures, I must argue the notion that the P90 will give you more versatility than a DSLR. The P90 has a fixed telephoto lens, so you can't change it like you can with a DSLR. That alone means DSLRs are more versatile. Then there's the issue of shutter lag which DSLRs don't have to deal with while point and shoots do. Does shutter lag equal versatility? I don't think so.

One point and shoot option I would recommend for a cruise is the one that professionals tend to choose as their backup camera of choice and that's the Canon G9 or G10. 10x optical zoom and the added benefit of manual controls. And it's small enough to fit in a handbook, fanny bag or jacket pocket. And with an additional hot shoe, you can add a stronger zoomable flash for shots where you need to shed light in farther off places.

I meant versatility in the fact that you have 2 different sizes of camera. A large one for professional-like photos, and a smaller one for more casual photography. The smaller/casual one can be used for trips where you need to move around and don't want to lug around a large dSLR, or where you may be worried about damaging your expensive dSLR. Versatility in different situations.

Understand. But I've had to "lug around" these ultrazooms. And I think that in that case, there'd be little appreciable difference. Even if an ounce or two, I'd rather have the performance that a DSLR affords.

Now the difference between a DSLR and the G10 ... now that's a dramatic size difference and you still get the performance boost.

I own a Nikon D60 and have a 70-300VR lens and part of my collection of lenses. Yes the combination is a bit of a beast to lug around, but it all depends on what you intend to shoot and where you're shooting. For amatuer sports and outdoor events, I choose my DSLR. For concerts and pro sports events at an arena or stadium, I bring my Canon SX10is. More and more sporting events are giving people grief about bringing "professional looking" cameras into the events. The Super zoom solves this problem.

I chose the Canon SX10is over the P90 for the following reasons:
- I have no brand loyalties - simply put Canon makes better point and shoot cameras than anyone else
- P90 has no hotshoe
- CHDK can be downloaded so the SX10is can record in RAW
- Nikon's LCD didn't swivel enough
- AA batteries can be bought anywhere
- In all the review sites I've surfed, the Canon was more favorably reviewed than the P90

Image quality concerns - in general, Nikons have warmer tones especially for portraits. This wasn't too important cuz I do portraits w/ my DSLR.

I Liked the P90 for the smaller package and the higher ISO range. The Nikon ergonomics were nice too. But these features weren't enough to close the deal.

I shot w/ both cameras and the Canon produces better results