I'm interested in purchasing a Nikon D300 (not the 300s), and Amazon shows that Crawford Superstore has 3 "new" ones...for $100 more the a 300s from B&H or Adarama.

Spoke to someone at Crawford who claims that it is "new" and its price reflects the fact that they are no longer being produced.

Has anyone had dealings with Crawford? If items are returned, are they handled satisfactorily?

As I think about it, you can have the best of both worlds. As far as I know, when you crop "in camera" you are creating a new image (while retaining the old). If one doesn't meet your desire, the other should. Make sense??

I've read through the responses to date, and am still not clear on the answer. Replies seem to go off in different directions.

Again, as orginally asked, if one crops "in camera" vs. cropping in"post", which would produce a better print...or would they be equal in quality [without any super duber post processsing software].

You'll also notice that as you progress toward the higher F stops, the cards behind the 'J" come into focus before those in front.

I've made the same type mistake in the past, and while I'm sure many will not agree, making use of Auto ISO can provide benefits. You may still need to be aware of the various settings to (say) get the depth of field you want, BUT being aware would have eliminated 1,000 ISO instead of 200.

I'd go with either a Nikon or Canon DSLR, for you will find that they have more accessories, lens mounts, etc. availabel...both from the manufacture and third parties.

First I would get her involved with the camera she will eventually get. She's the one that will be using it. Hopefully you have stores that she can go to in order to hold it and see which feels better in her hands.

I assume that she is new to photography, so while you want a camera she can grow with, you also don't want one that will overwhelm her. Remember, in the "good old days" you had a "camera". In today's world, you have to deal with both a camera and computer. Given the new generation, your daughter is probably very comfortable with computers, so that may not be a hurdle for her to cross.

Also, the school she goes to may have a photography elective, so the instructor might be able to provide some person-to-person advise.

There are plenty of web sites that can provide comparisons.

I had a 18-135mm for my D200. Out of the country, camera amd lens fell of the bed and the lens mount broke. Considering the cost to repair, I decided I'd go for an 18-200mm Nikon. I waited long enoogh for there to be a $200 reduction sale going on and got it.

I went back and forth between getting the 18-200mm or the newer 18-300mm. Glade I got the 200 as while the 300 gives a longer reach, it is Bigger and Heavier.

Depending on the weight of your camera, adding a Heavy lens can get to you if you have to carry it around for a good part of ther day.

I recently retired, and have been on trips to Alaska, Europe and the British Isles...and I'm glade the load I carried wasn't any heavier.

A friend once told me that in most cases the diffeence between Xmm and Ymm can be achieved by moving a couple of feet closer. Of course it depends on were you are, and whether you can step foward those couple of feet.

I wish I had a camera store nearby, but the only one in town that I purchased my D200 from got out of the sales end. They just couldn't compete with the big box stores, ie. Best Buy, B&H & Adorama.

Knowing the feel of the 200, I'm sure I'd like the 300s...or 400 if it should ever materialize. As orginally stated, my concern is dealing with a "new" model and the unknown probelms that often arise. A 400 will definitely be an upgrade, but I assume the 300s will have worked out any problems that it may have had.

I acknowledge that DX models like the 7000/7100 are more up-to-date then the 300s with improved features, but I like the heavier feel of the D200, D300s and maybe D400, as well as their better build.

Again, I'd jump at a potential D400, but as stated previously, my concern is with the shake out period of any new model. Maybe I wait a year to see if any problems arise, or just go with a 300s after a new (?) model is announced. From the specs, the 300s has a number of features not available in the 200...so it would be a step up.

Thanks for the reply. Its not a matter of cost or timing for a newer model, but rather not having to be concerned about QA problems from a new model. I guess I don't like the unexpected.

Signed up in April, but new to the forum.

Looking for feedback on the following: If I were to purchase a new Nikon D300s, is it reasonable to think that any problems that there might have been with earlier production have been addressed.

I have a D200, and like everyone else, I await a possible D400, but given the recent history of production problems with newer Nikon models, I think I'm willing to forgo some upgrades for production reliability. Less problems to deal with. I'm not in the professional ranks, so the very latest and greatest isn't a necessity.

Your thoughts.