craggycrossers Loc: Robin Hood Country, UK

Don't you think, Bruce, it's up to the Op to decide how "well positioned" he is, rather than you doing it for him ?

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

But, if he knew, he'd not made his post. :-)

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

I'm with craggycrossers on that one, don't et sucked in by the newest and "bestest" camera out there. You will only get disapointed when the next "upgrade" comes out after you buy your "upgrade". I seen many photo's from the D300 and D300s and they are spectacular, just check them out on 500px.com.

Bozsik Loc: Orangevale, California

If you are looking to sell stock images of landscape, the choice of a full frame image is a better choice. But only if you want to spend the extra money. Stock image landscape work is often used in large print size. The image quality of full frame compared to DX is significant. If someone is looking through stock images and is wanting a large image file to print from, the full frame one will be significantly better. You will also have a larger audience to sell to.

Some of the DX cameras do have great images taken with them, but they still don't compare to the FF cameras. Do you need the FF? It is up to you to decide. You stated that you want to make money selling your images. Why would you want to limit your salable images if you can afford the FF.

I have both FF and DX and I can assure you, there is a big difference in resolution and noise from the D600 to the D300. BIG difference. Both take great images in the right hands. It is what will be more salable in the end. The D610 is coming out if you have any misgivings about the D600.

It is up to you.

Bozsik Loc: Orangevale, California

But not the D90 which is what he stated he also owns.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

He stated that he owns the D70 not the D90.

Bozsik Loc: Orangevale, California

You are right. Thought I read 70 and 90, but it was from the 90's. Still doesn't matter. FF will give him the most options if he is selling stock...if he can afford the price.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

LOL ya I almost did that as well, threw me off and had to read what he typed 2 times/

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

:thumbup:

or D7100. Even better.

DaveHam Loc: Reading UK

The D300 is still a great camera but if you are thinking of going full frame then rather do that now as you will need to invest in lenses as well and the DX lenses for the D300 would need replacing on the FX body (unless you buy FX lenses for the D300).

Perhaps the way to look at this is that the body is probably less important than the lenses you invest in. The main failing of the D300 is the sensor is prone to noise above ISO 800, and probably unacceptably so above ISO 1600.

The FX bodies cope with noise better than the smaller DX sensors. Maybe the D600 / 610 or even a good used D3S or D700. There are quite a few around at very good prices.

Fstop12 Loc: Kentucky

I use a D300, my wife uses the D7000. While my D300 is a nice camera, I like her's better. The new kid in that category is the D7100.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

That must be a kit car.

craggycrossers Loc: Robin Hood Country, UK

Correct Jerry - the JBA Falcon kit car - started in the early 1980's by three British Leyland design draughtsmen in the period when BL was looking for voluntary redundancies !

Nice looking car, eh?

Lots of info here :-

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=jba+falcon+owners+club&oq=JBA+Falcon&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.12243j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

authorizeduser Loc: Monroe, Michigan

I upgraded from the Nikon D200 to the D300 about a month back and have never regretted it. The D300 is much superior to the D200 in almost every way. I have used the D300 with a 35mm 2.8 lens and was able to shot without flash indoors with ISO 400~800 and at night and never took the ISO past 1600. The noise at 1600 was not bad at all and after using Paintshop Pro X6 and Topaz DeNoise you would never know it was ever there. Read up on the D300 and you will find it a fantastic camera that can be had for around $650 body only. Don't let people tell you because the D300 is 5+ years old it is no longer worthy of consideration. The D300s added video, extra button on the back for live view and dual memory slots ( Compact and SD ) but is essentially still a D300.

schuchmn

I made the switch to digital with the D70, passed up the D80 and the D200, then bought the D300 as soon as I saw it. Great camera -- built better than the D7000 (which I recently bought) and the D600. It's gone everywhere with me and shoots as well as it did the day I bought it.

The D7000 can sometimes produce better results, but it doesn't have the frame rate or buffer size of the D300. So if you're shooting anything fast-moving (I shot birds in flight in Costa Rica in January)the D300 will do better than the D7000. And in an awful lot of images, you'd be hard pressed to tell which camera was used.

Funny, I was thinking of semi-retiring my D300, but I think I've just convinced myself that it's worth keeping in the lineup.

Used D300's go for less that half the price of a new D7100 and a quarter of the price of a D610, so I'd say they were a good deal.

I had two D70's. I gave one to my son and then the flash stopped working. So I gave him the other and that one stopped recognizing full batteries. No, I don't think he did anything to kill them, but the point is that bodies that old are subject to sudden failure and aren't worth repairing, even if they can be repaired. So you probably ought to do something soon.

If the D300 suits your needs, go for it.