I'm still toting around my D300 and wondering, & watching, & waiting for what is next. The first five or so years of digital photography, I chased the annual upgrades. Now watching the upgrades in technology zoom right on by and feel left behind, falling further behind.
Don't feel bad, I'm still toting around my D200. The only upgrade reason I could see was for better low light performance, but that didn't seem like reason enough when there is always new glass out there to seduce me. Maybe the next iteration Dx00 (as long as its DX) will convince me with some other features, but for now I'm happy with my D200 and a pile of lenses!
I was in the exact boat as you, very early adopter of the D300. I finely got tired of waiting and left it and DX behind and jumped into a D800. I have had the FX D800 now for over a month. I am 110% confident it was the right choice for me and will never give DX a second thought. Besides I have a 16meg DX body within the D800 anyway.
I have very mixed feelling about my D300. The results I've seen from cameras released since this technology have shown great improvements in performance, mostly in dynamic range and low noise/high ISO. The DX format definitely does have real estate limitations that impact those, and other performance criteria.
I doubt I will "upgrade", and am going to try to get better with what I have.
I am the happy owner of a D300 and few high level glasses (all nikkors) for DX format, namely the AFS 12-24, the AFS 17-55 and some primes (35, 50, 85 and 180). I am perfectly fine with my gear, furthermore if (and it's a big if) and when I would change to fx format I should sell many of my lenses and afford top dollar/euro new lenses (i.e. the 14-24 and the 24-70), with all the headache of the added weight... I believe I will be happy with my D300 in the future (as i did with my FM many years ago...) Bye bye from Italy
The "long-term" move would be to invest in FX lenses, knowing eventually that FX production yields will improve and lower the price-point to DX levels. I suspect we're seeing the tip of that wave if the "D600" gets announced between Photokina next month and PMA 2013 in January.
>The "long-term" move would be to invest in FX >lenses, knowing eventually that FX production yields will >improve and lower the price-point to DX levels...
For DX "cheerleaders" (I'm one) the issue isn't the cost of an FX vs. DX camera, but rather the size/weight/cost of the lenses. I'd rather carry an 18-200 on my DX camera than a 28-300 on FX, for example. The DX 55-300 gives me some pretty good reach in a very portable telephoto zoom, for another example.
For DX "cheerleaders" (I'm one) the issue isn't the cost of an FX vs. DX camera, but rather the size/weight/cost of the lenses. I'd rather carry an 18-200 on my DX camera than a 28-300 on FX, for example.
The difference in weight is about 9 oz (19 vs 28). Very negligible. Cost I will agree with you, but in general almost all of the superzooms are overpriced...
>...The difference in weight is about 9 oz (19 vs 28). Very negligible...
The difference is more than half a pound, or looked at another way, the 28-300 is 50% heavier. Enough of a difference to notice, anyway.
Edited to add: A fairer comparison would be between the 28-300 and the DX 18-300, which are both about the same size and weight. The field of view is about equally wide on the wide end, but 1.5 times longer on the long end on DX.
I, for one, wish that a better assortment of fast primes for DX, other than the 35 (not counting the 50 here) was available. Slow zooms seem to plague the DX format. But filling in the gaps with some fast primes, for those of us who are cooked from zooms (myself being one of them) might have me staying with DX as opposed to FX.
But I do think Nikon really needs to also introduce some lower cost FX bodies. I'd much rather have something like that as opposed to any crop sensored D300 replacement.
>I don't chase after "advances" in technology, I'm >not waiting for a new model, I don't feel left behind, and my >D300 does everything I need a camera to do. > >I will do photography with my D300 and my FM, and be perfectly >satisfied. (And only manual focus lenses, by the way).
I can definitely respect that stand. I'd like to say that I'm that way, but I did deviate when I bought my F5 at introductory price points . Even though I have a wish list posted, I have no plans to buy the items.
I will use my current lenses and accessory equipment. Some will impose restrictions on me, such as the outdated flashes (SB-24 and SB-28) that will not work TTL with my D200, but I can live with that. I could definitely use a wider lens for the D200, but again, I'll probably live without it.
Sometimes the best answer is learning to work with what you have rather than running out and buying something else.
Of course I can say all this since I'm an amateur. Professionals have different requirements and I can understand how their priorities are also different.
Larry, I teach sixth grade, and Tuesday we had school pictures taken by a big company that does this work. They had four cameras with full lighting set-ups in our gymnasium. When I knelt to have my picture taken, I was looking into a lens mounted on....a D300! Turns out these cameras do everything needed to do great school photography, so this company bought them in bulk, and uses them every day.
>I'm still toting around my D300 and wondering, & >watching, & waiting for what is next. The first five or so >years of digital photography, I chased the annual upgrades. >Now watching the upgrades in technology zoom right on by and >feel left behind, falling further behind. My D300s takes Beautiful photos and I'm sure yours does too! >What & when is next for the D300? How about a D400, maybe on the 19th? Hoping! What I'd like is more dynamic range, better noise control & white balance and maybe more megapixels.
May Your Day Be Happy And Full Of Beautiful Images D.H.R.