A few months ago Nikon released updates to their prosumer and professional lines with the D300 and D3.
The D3 is obviously better but for me the fact that it’s a full frame camera is a disadvantage. Unlike most full frame cameras I would be able to use my DX lenses with it but at a greatly reduced resolution. Buying a very expensive 12 megapixel camera and then fitting lenses that only let you work at 5 megapixels does seem to be defeating the purpose.
So the D300, which has the same resolution but with a DX sensor, is the more interesting one for me.
DPReviews has just done a review of it.
Some of the advantages over my d80 are: improved resolution, dust reduction, faster continuous shoot mode, better noise reduction and weather seals.
A summary of the review is, I want one.
I’m due to get some money at some point (hopefully this year) and I’m in two minds about how to use it. Get a D300 or buy some better quality lenses.
The conventional wisdom is: If you buy mediocre lenses and a great camera in five years you’ll have mediocre lenses and an obsolete camera. Whereas if you buy great lenses and a mediocre camera, in five years you’ll have great lenses and an obsolete camera.
That points to updating my lenses but it’s harder to know what constitutes a good lens. With cameras it’s pretty simple
D3 > D300 > D80 > D40
The numbering doesn’t really make sense but it’s easy enough to remember. With lenses though there’s a lot more choice which makes things trickier.
Decisions, decisions.
Posted by msparshatt 
