Hi all, I have put together a set of cameras or camera systems that cover my needs for different situations. I have a bit of a missing link in the high ISO area, though. I'd like some recommendations so that I can best put my own thoughts in order. I hope that it's safe to ask that you presume the existence of a higher-than-D3s-ISO camera of the same caliber. I think we'll know something for absolute certain in a couple of days but let's just say that a DSLR with "better" ISO performance is an option. This is what I have, and it meets my needs. I am not a PJ and recently, no longer a wedding photographer with a PJ-style. Nor am I shooting sports on a regular basis. I am not just landscapes in good light, though. Point-n-shoot: Panasonic LX3 Small interchangeable lens system: Nikon 1 VH1 HD Video system: Nikon 1 VH1 DSLR: D300 Ridiculously high ISO DSLR: ??? I come from a background of shooting black and white film at ISO 3200, 6400, etc. Sometimes just "really fast" in low light situations, guessing exposure, and then developing to the best I can. I"m probably out at 12,800 fairly often. I will still shoot film but if I have a DSLR with me that can get up there in ISO and give me _color_...that would be nice. One option is to keep using the D300 for high ISO. It does acceptably well at 1600 but I feel I am not getting the desired results at 3200. It's usable, for sure, but not quite the level I'd like. Most of the time I crank it up is when shooting sports, which isn't all that often and usually just for fun at friends' events, or when out with friends or at a social gathering in a restaurant or someone's house, where the lighting is relatively low. When I'm not shooting a wedding, I'm often not using flash. In these situations, I do feel a bit reluctant to turn up the ISO on the D300 and sometimes lose shots when I look at the results. I have some but not an overwhelming commitment to DX lenses. I also have several non-DX-specific lenses (I guess it's wrong to call them "FX lenses"). I'm not wedded to a format, in other words. I would "cannibalize" use of my D300 with any that does better at faster ISO, though. I'm not likely to keep grabbing the D300 for any particular purpose if I have another. Whereas I don't see myself in situations where I need HD Video when the VH1 wouldn't be a perfectly fine camera option (video would be for situations with family, etc). The other option is to look at either a D700, D3s or the "faster than D3s" option. The D700 is getting hard to find but it does use the same battery as my D300 and grip, too. I am happy with the AF performance on the D300 and metering, so I figure they'd be fine for me on the D700. The D3s uses a different battery but adds higher ISO performance. Its size doesn't matter much to me since I often have the grip on the D300 and that combination is actually bigger than the D3s alone. The last option would be the "even better than D3s" camera which would be even higher ISO, still needs new batteries, but throws in HD video to boot. It's also the latest of everything, whereas the D700 and D3s are, relatively speaking, long in the tooth. Whether that means they are "bad" is a different issue. There is obviously the issue of price but for the sake of this discussion since I"m willing to consider a D3s, which is double a D700, it's reasonable to presume that I'd consider another model that is perhaps $1000 more than the D3s is currently going for. So. If you're in my shoes, where really the only missing item is a camera that can perform in lighting situations that I've become accustomed to when using film and that are pushing the D300's performance...what would you do? I am fully aware that everyone is different, YMMV, etc. But I'm just looking for advice on how to look at the landscape of camera systems out there, and how I might fill this gap. I will still make the decision myself but respect and appreciate the input of others. thanks. if it is felt that my post is inappropriate I understand if it is deleted.