I,m on the merge to go to my first dslr, After much reading my choice is to go with the Nikon d90 with 18-105 lens.
As good a choice as any.
In the last 2 or 3 days, i've read that recent P&S can deliver the same picture quality Outdoor (no real surprise there) but also indoor when the light is not at his peak. I Always thouht that the small sensor size of the P&S make them less performing in dim light than dslr.
Depends on the specific cameras under discussion, the photographer and the result you're looking for. I use Nikon dSLRs as well as Canon compacts (Nikon's compacts suck), and I can say that up to ISO800, handled carefully (ie taking charge of the camera and making it do what it's told) both my Canon G10 and S95 are for all intents and purposes the equal of my Nikon D200s in low light. (Note that this is real world use, not comparisons in a lab somewhere. Am I happy going to 800 on the compacts? Not really, it's a lot of work to get a good RAW file in-camera; but it can be done.) That image quality difference must be weighed against the 5 or 6 years of development between the D200 and the G10/S95 - the D200 is still a great camera, but we've come a long way since it was released. Of course, all of them pale when compared to my D700...
For me the main advantage of an p&s is portability.
A small camera in your hand is better than a big one at home. Which is why I own the S95. :
)
Is there any model who can deliver the same indoor quality without flash from what i can get with the d90?
If you mean 'Is there any model of compact camera that will give me the same quality etc', then I'd say not. If you meant the question to refer to any camera type, then yes, almost any current dSLR will do it for you, and some will beat the D90 in quality quite easily.
I alse saw great results we can get from the nikon 35 mm 1.8 ((blurry background and stuff). anyone know a p&s who can deliver the same result ?
There isn't one - maximum possible depth of field blur is in direct correlation to the size of the sensor. Very simply, the smaller the sensor, the greater the minimum depth of field.
I really thought that dslr is the way to go to learn photography and obtain the greatest results, but it seem that I might be wrong....
No, you're not wrong. Yes, you are wrong. It all comes down to what will work best for you - as is often said, it's not the camera, it's the photographer. Cameras are tools, and that's all they are. A 'good' camera will increase your chance of making a 'good' image, but it doesn't guarantee it. The best way to learn is to not obsess about the gear, but to obsess about the images. Do your research, look around online for tutorials in what you want to learn, join a local camera club, look at other photographers' work (published in books and magazines, on the net, at your local club - you can learn to 'see' by looking at what others see), and go out and SHOOT SHOOT SHOOT, with whatever camera you have closest when the urge strikes.
That said, if you're serious about your photography, a cheap and nasty compact will pretty soon start to limit your ability to get the result you want. Go and buy your D90, then SHOOT with it. Learn from your mistakes, learn from your successes, DON'T ask your wife/girlfriend/Mum for criticism - go and get some feedback from people who will be honest with you (see 'join a camera club' above.) Above all, HAVE FUN - life is way too short to get bent out of shape over cameras.
There is no such thing as the perfect camera; if you choose the dSLR, there will be negatives. There will also be positives. In my (not so) humble opinion, the pluses outweigh the minuses by a good margin - get the D90 and be happy.
Rob
