I want to buy a D300, not a D7000, why?

[warwick]

Hello again I start with a canon 300d and than d200 which shouldn't of sold and then d3 and a d7000 . The best camera is the one you like to used all the time and that for me is the d3!!!

 

[manaheim]

Unless you're buying used, buying a D300 or even a D300s right now seems a little crazy to me. (and I have a D300... it's been a wonderful performer for me for some years now)

There are a number of options anticipated right around the corner, including even the D600 (granted, you'll really need FF lenses to make that work). But seriously... the D300 is crusty as heck at this point and likely to be replaced fairly soon. AND really NOT that much better than your D90. Better? Yes. Enough to justify dropping $1500-1800 when a new one is right around the corner? No way. (mind you... the way Nikon works, right around the corner may mean this time next year... but still...)

 

[coastalconn]

. Enough to justify dropping $1500-1800 when a new one is right around the corner? No way. (mind you... the way Nikon works, right around the corner may mean this time next year... but still...)

$1500-1800 would be insane. Used D300 are going for around $600 which I took advantage of 2 months ago and I think that is the OP's plan...

 

[JDFlood]

Considering how much a D300s is, it would be foolish not to buy a (used) D700 instead.

I have to agree. I may be jaded, but long term, I am sure the DX sensor series goes away. I think the cost difference is temporary and in a few years... Bye bye. Then you have a bunch of lenses that are crippling for an FX camera.... Get an FX! jD

 

[manaheim]

Considering how much a D300s is, it would be foolish not to buy a (used) D700 instead.

I have to agree. I may be jaded, but long term, I am sure the DX sensor series goes away. I think the cost difference is temporary and in a few years... Bye bye. Then you have a bunch of lenses that are crippling for an FX camera.... Get an FX! jD

Buying a D700 is a very different vector. You need to have full frame glass to do this and do it effectively, unless you want all of your pictures to be 5MP. This means you have to have an investment in full frame glass already, or have enough to buy at least one FF lens.

The more logical decision is used D300S or used D7000. Personally, if choosing between those two I'd say used D7000. It's an all-around better camera, unfortunately... even though the D300S has a leg up in some areas.

 

[shadowlands]

Considering how much a D300s is, it would be foolish not to buy a (used) D700 instead.

I have to agree. I may be jaded, but long term, I am sure the DX sensor series goes away. I think the cost difference is temporary and in a few years... Bye bye. Then you have a bunch of lenses that are crippling for an FX camera.... Get an FX! jD

Buying a D700 is a very different vector. You need to have full frame glass to do this and do it effectively, unless you want all of your pictures to be 5MP. This means you have to have an investment in full frame glass already, or have enough to buy at least one FF lens.

The more logical decision is used D300S or used D7000. Personally, if choosing between those two I'd say used D7000. It's an all-around better camera, unfortunately... even though the D300S has a leg up in some areas.

No, I'd buy a used D300 body for $600.00-$650.00, not new....
And I don't need a D300s for I own the D90. Don't need the video option, etc....
I don't want the D7000 because it's the size of the D90. I want the helf/bulk of the D300 (build).

 

[mjhoward]

I may be jaded, but long term, I am sure the DX sensor series goes away. I think the cost difference is temporary and in a few years... Bye bye. Then you have a bunch of lenses that are crippling for an FX camera.... Get an FX! jD

You think the DX sensor goes away, why? Because it's smaller and everyone will want the larger FX sensor? Following this logic, they made a major mistake in introducing the all new CX sensor size since, in time, they'll kill all small sensors. BTW, lets assume that the difference in cost does become negligible between a DX and FX sensor in the future... the glass will still be more expensive so consumers wouldn't really save much.

 

[manaheim]

You think the DX sensor goes away, why? Because it's smaller and everyone will want the larger FX sensor? Following this logic, they made a major mistake in introducing the all new CX sensor size since, in time, they'll kill all small sensors. BTW, lets assume that the difference in cost does become negligible between a DX and FX sensor in the future... the glass will still be more expensive so consumers wouldn't really save much.

These kind of things are all a matter of speculation... Educated, semi-educated, or otherwise.

I tend to agree, though... At least in the dslr line I think you will see dx sensors fade away. If the reported price of the d600 is real, you already see the beginnings of it. Why would I buy a D300s for $1600 when I could buy the D600 for $1800?

Those prices are off a bit, I think, and obviously we may see a d400 soon, but what is a d400 going to give me that would compel me to not buy the 600 for essentially the same price? Frankly I've been wondering if the d400 is ever going to show... Unless its a FX 18mp or something, why bother? A 24mp dx would be sort of ok I guess, but at what price point? The d600 basically demonstrates compression. On paper it squeezes out the tier that was the d100,d200,d300 level.

And you have reuse. Every couple years you see a lower tier model get the sensor from a bigger brother. D70 got the D100 sensor I believe... D80 got the d200 sensor, d90 got the d300 sensor... And then the d7000 kicked the d300s sensor in the ass. Even more support to the argument, if a slightly different strut.

So I think in another three years we see Fx sensors creep into the d5000 level (just reuse that d600 sensor, now cheaper to produce), and then it's pretty much over.

 

[greybeard]

It's your money, buy whatever you want.

 

[JDFlood]

You think the DX sensor goes away, why? Because it's smaller and everyone will want the larger FX sensor? Following this logic, they made a major mistake in introducing the all new CX sensor size since, in time, they'll kill all small sensors. BTW, lets assume that the difference in cost does become negligible between a DX and FX sensor in the future... the glass will still be more expensive so consumers wouldn't really save much.

It is simple economics. Over time the cost of sensors go down, so you end up with two lines of R&D to support two lines of cameras with hardly any cost difference of manufacture. If you combine the lines, you can combine your R&D teams and double the production volume of the remaining lines of cameras. When sensors cost a buck or two... And your putting them into the same form / function cases... You discontinue the line. You have to, if you don't Your competition will and have a huge price advantage. You combine or go out of business.