>The upgrade merry-go-round does get tedious. But I think that >is what the manufacturers want us to do.
The thing is, you do not have to upgrade for upgrade sake I did not "upgrade" from the D200 to the D300 because an upgrade for me would mean an improvement of 2 stops in ISO. Since it was not there, I upgraded my consumer zooms to 2.8 glass instead, and that gave me the extra exposure latitude I wanted. The next step would be to get a DX sensor that would give me even more and better hi-ISO because I shoot in low light with no flash, and do not want to go FX.
> I am >"stuck" with my D300, and while the way it exposes >often drives me mad, and the needlessly complex menus, narrow >latitude and poor high ISO performance does drive me nuts, I'm >not going to shell out another $2500 on just a body, and then >have to invest thousands more in FX glass.
You are in pretty good position with your D300, other than the sensor.
> While I think I >made a mistake in the investment in the DX format, I'm just >going to try to make the most out of it, and work on my >skills. Shooting film as often as I do has also made me a >better digital photographer, and forced me to slow down.
What would you have achieved better by investing in FX rather than DX? Just curious, as the often cited benefits do not impress me.