lorim222315 Loc: Twin City Area

The discussion continues. Do I upgrade from Nikon D300 to D7000 or D7100 or purchase new glass such as a 400mm? The sale on the bodies are encouraging. Or skip all and go full frame? I would appreciate opinions and thoughts on upgrading? I want better ISO options for low light, focusing points - do I need 51 vs 39 - would I notice? I am pretty sure the LCD screen size is not a deal maker or breaker. Movie - not my first priority, but might give it a shot. Either talk me off the ledge or please get me on the correct ledge! Thanks for your help.

tramsey Loc: Texas

Unless your 300 is not doing something that you think the upgrade is worth, go for the glass.

lorim222315 Loc: Twin City Area

Thanks for your response. I am not sure the 300 is not doing something I would like better except maybe ISO. I think some of the noise is not getting the lighting right. This thing is a work horse. I have had it for 6 years. I really like it. But is it time for new technology?

Wabbit Loc: Arizona Desert

Hey Doc ..... if ya thinking a 400mm then ya probably enjoy the crop factor advantage so you won't be happy with a FF ..... so I'd go for the lens .....

..... D300s shooters that try the D7100 are not satisfied ..... because of this I believe Nikon will eventually release the D400 cause the D7100 lacks the speed and build quality that the D300 has .....

lorim222315 Loc: Twin City Area

Thanks. Speed is critical.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Hahahaha....You've got enough green to buy a Nikon 400mm? Actually, buy a 300mm f4 with a 1.4 teleconverter and the full frame (D800). As Wabbit said, the D300 is a special purpose camera. It only has 12mp but is very fast as far as fps goes, so it's a very good sports camera. Keep the D300 for sports and get the D800 for other types of photography. If sports photography is what you do primarily, get the Nikon 300mm f2.8.

Wabbit Loc: Arizona Desert

oops

lorim222315 Loc: Twin City Area

Don't tempt me. D800 could be fun and challenging.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Once again, my advice is to go for the glass, but get an EF lens so you have a start on compatible lenses should you later decide to upgrade to full frame.

Hando Rei Loc: Long Island New York

In most situations going for the glass is usually recommended. Final decision is obviously yours and budget usually plays a big role ...good luck !

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

If you need fast frames /sec then think of a used/reconditioned D3s or a D4. The 7100 5 fps/ d800 6 fps
D4 D3s low noise at higher ISO

Nikonfan70 Loc: Long Island

Normally I would say go with the glass, but Nikon dosen't make a 400mm for DX cameras. Since your D300 is DX and still very expensive up grading to another dx is not going to solve your problem. A 2x teleconverter will not work well with a slow lens especially a zoom and Nikon doesn't make one. I think you are at the difficult DX-FX cross road.

CurreyPhoto Loc: Reddick, Florida

You haven't told us what subject matter you like to shoot or would like to shoot that you are not able to now. With that information we could, perhaps, be of more help. If you want better high ISO and speed is critical, then the suggestion above of a reconditioned D3s or a D4 is good. I regularly shoot my D3s at 10000 ISO and it zooms along at 9fps or 11fps in crop mode. The D4 does 10fps in full frame mode and is probably better at high ISO than the D3s.

romanticf16 Loc: Commerce Twp, MI

A 400mmFX lens will fit fine on a D300, and will be available if he decides to go FF in the future, too.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Here's the thing. You might not have a major need for a new body and the features it offers, but you're obviously thinking about it. Getting a new camera energizes the whole picture-taking experience. You could keep the D300 until repairing it is no longer practical, but how much fun is that? If you buy a new body, you can sell the D300 or keep it as a spare.

Do you really have a need for a 400mm lens, or would it be just another item in your inventory? I've worked my way up to a D600, and I see no need to go any farther along that line. I also have the lenses I need to cover everything from fisheye to 300mm. It would be nice to own a 70-200mm f/2.8, but I can't justify owning a 3.5 lb, $2,400 lens that covers 142 mm less than what I have now. Adding 8% sales tax to $2,400 is another consideration. That's the price of a good intermediate lens.

If I were in your position, I would buy a new body and then evaluate the lens situation and decide if there is need for a new one. The thing with lenses is, you pay a huge premium for a slight improvement over a good quality lens. My 28-300mm cost about $925. If I were to get the 70-200mm, I would have a large, heavy lens that would cover 142mm less and cost almost three times as much, and I would have to examine my images closely to see any improvement in quality.