$1500 budget - have a D300 - need another camera!

[jose_angel]

<p>Some <em>suddenly arrived</em> thoughts:</p>

<ul>

<li>Are you sure you don`t need video? This is the first filter. Don`t you have childrens?</li>

<li>If you`re sure you don`t need video, I`d narrow the choice to 1). D7000, 2). D300/D300s or 3). D700.</li>

<li>I`d choose the D7000 for its smaller size and latest technology. If you don`t mind about size, extreme resolution and all this stuff, I`d go for choice #2.</li>

<li>I`d choose a D300s over the plain D300 for the dual card slot and video capability. If you don`t mind about it, just have a D300 twin camera system.</li>

<li>If you like to try FX, you already have a bunch of good FF lenses; just buy a D700. I don`t know if there is a D700 in perfect condition at such price... I`d not place a kidney in pawn for a used D700. Anyway, if you opt for a D700 it will perfectly match the D300 you are used to; The D300 will be great for macro and longer shots while the D700 for high ISO and everyday stuff. </li>

</ul>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I have about $1500 to spend. What should I buy? A slightly used D7000 or a used D700 or D2 or another D300 - or just pay the big extra and get a used D3?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As far as I can tell, the OP is in the US and we are talking about US$ and US prices, and his comment puzzles me.</p>

<p>In the US, a brand new D7000 is $1200 (that was how much I paid for mine). $1500 should be more than enough to get a new one. If he wants to go FX, there is the usual FX penalty and $1500 is probably not sufficient to get a used D700 in good shape. My experience is that the D700 can give you about 2/3-stop advantage over the D7000 @ ISO 6400; you do pay quite a bit for a relatively small gain.</p>

<p>The D300-D7000 is not particularly a great pair to own, since they use different memory cards and batteries. However, you can use the D7000 as a stepping stone to gradually migrate to newer technology; e.g. I have little doubt that the D7000's EN-EL15 is replacing the EN-EL3e as Nikon's standard mid-range battery. The EN-EL15 has hidden electronic contacts and is less prone to short circuits.</p>

<p>As far as sizes go, the D700 is larger than the D300 and the D7000 is smaller. I have all three. It is totally an individual prefernece whether larger or smaller is "better."</p>

[rayyeager]

<p>With the lenses you already have the D700 would be perfect. The D700 has almost exactly the same menus and setup as the D300. It is slightly bigger, but feels the same to me. As said, you may have to add a little more cash. I have this combo and very similar lenses. I think you would be very happy as I am.</p>

[mark_ritz]

<p>A) D7000<br>

or<br>

B) F100, F4, and a F5 AND $1000 worth of film (somewhere between 4000' [bulk B&W] and 3600 shots [36 exposure Velvia rolls])</p>

[kris-bochenek]

<p>Like some said I too would go for D300 or even D200 I got the second as my "backup body" got it for very little money and it only had few K on it. But I believe with 1.5K budget I would go for D300.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Yeah, since you are asking, I would chime in with the used, demo or what I got, a re-furbished D700 Fx. It will make complement your lenses quite nicely. Sell the 40 and look around. BTW it's an excellent low light camera as well.</p>

[ianivey]

<p>I use a D3 and D300 combo. Different batteries, but similar-enough ergonomics (I use a grip with the D300) that I don't mind the differences. The D700/D300 combo, which offers functionally the same benefits for your purposes as a D3/D300 combo, is an even tighter pair in ergonomic terms.</p>

<p>The D300 high-ISO performance is adequate; the D700 is sufficiently better that you will find yourself not wanting to use the D300 much in low-light situations. </p>

<p>I agree with other posters that a D7000 doesn't make a lot of sense to pair with a D300: The D7000 offers no ISO advantage over the D700, and you lose the strength of the FX/DX pairing in terms of mixing up focal lengths. </p>

<p>Paying the "big extra," as you put it (if you meant "bit extra," I think your typo is more accurate), to get the D3 probably doesn't make a lot of sense for you if you're not a pro shooting long days. A D3s would add another roughly two stops of ISO performance over the D700/D3, but $4900 is more than a wee stretch from $1500. :)</p>

<p>You mentioned a "D2," by which I'm not sure whether you meant the pro-size body or the D200, but in either case the D300 is superior and I predict you would regret the purchase of either of the "2"-series bodies. </p>

<p>Count me as another vote for D700. It's compatible with your D300 (equipment and ergonomics), it is a lens-multiplier when paired with a D300 (FX/DX combo), and it still beats the D7000 in high ISO. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p><em>I would love to see a full size image of the one you posted. What ISO is that?</em></p>

<p>that was ISO 12,800. there's some grain, but it holds together well, not blotchy at all. the scene was actually darker to the naked eye in real life then what the camera saw. we're talking extreme low-light. had i applied NR in post, it would be even cleaner, that's straight out the camera. i probably could have gotten away with the 50/1.4 there instead of the 24-70, which would have given me a bit more latitude. personally i prefer a wider aperture over a high ISO if i can help it. the main thing was, i was able to maintain a decently-fast shutter and freeze motion, and also shoot without flash, which would have been distracting to the paying customers.</p>

<p> </p>

[jeff_becker]

<p>Hey Everyone....what about the idea of me purchasing a used D90 to complement my D300? The image quality and ISO performance of the D90 should be on par with my D300 and the used market for the D90 is huge - you can buy one with only a couple thousand actuations for $600. Doesn't it make more sense to buy a 'nearly' brand new D90 for $600 rather than $1200 for a D7000 or $2000 for a used D700? </p>

[dave_greer]

<p>Try the D2Xs...within your range...is a Pro body and 12MP...</p>