phxflyer said:

unless you really want to make the jump to FX right how, a used D200 or D300 from KEH sounds like a great option.

I would agree the D300 used or refurb is a good idea, but not the D200. The difference in low light performance from the 1st gen Nikons to the 2nd gen is drastic.

Given your usage, the D7000's features, performance, construction, and price should be at the tops of your list. Hence, it would be my recommendation for you.

Best of luck...cheers.

Just cry! Then buy a D7000.

You don't say how many clicks your camera has done or anything about the general condition. If it hasn't done 150,000 clicks then maybe Nikon will help you with the cost? If it has done that high mileage then it may be better to replace it. If it were mine, I'd know it was otherwise in excellent condition so worth repairing. If however you recently dropped it or whatever, then I'd replace the camera.

coastalconn said:
You could always give KEH a try also they have EX condition D300 for 665. 6 month warranty and 14 day return policy.. Just a thought.

unless you really want to make the jump to FX right how, a used D200 or D300 from KEH sounds like a great option.

Go with what you know, until something really better comes around (the D7000 really isn't it)

I've dealt with KEH and have been very satisfied, most of their stuff is low time doctor/lawyer toys. With want you get for the money (warrantee, money back garantee, etc) I really don't see how you can go wrong..

coastalconn said:
You could always give KEH a try also they have EX condition D300 for 665. 6 month warranty and 14 day return policy.. Just a thought.

If your D300 is a little beaten up, this sounds like an excellent option.

You could always give KEH a try also they have EX condition D300 for 665. 6 month warranty and 14 day return policy.. Just a thought.

R8R said:
Replacing a shutter on a 4 year old camera is like replacing the engine on a high mileage car. Sure the engine is new, but what about when all the other stuff starts crapping out?

That's true. Only you know how you've looked after your camera, but presuming everything else is in fine fettle, I'd certainly get the shutter repaired. This is by far the cheapest option, and while not satisfying any NAS tendencies you may have, should keep you shooting for a few more years. If the rest of the camera is a bit beaten up, then I'd put my shutter money into a nice second hand recon or warrantied model.

Actually looking at Craig's List you can get a used D300 in nice shape for less than $600. So there's that option. Having the shutter replaced on yours at $400 sounds good too, but if you can find a decent used body with a low shutter count, then the wear and tear on all the other components is something to consider. (buttons, mirror, doors, switches, etc)

Replacing a shutter on a 4 year old camera is like replacing the engine on a high mileage car. Sure the engine is new, but what about when all the other stuff starts crapping out?

Bootstoo said:I like my D300. The guy at the camera store assured me that the D7000 was twice the camera the D300 is. Better resolution.

Uhh...NO.

I have the D7000, and I love it to death, but it's not 2x the camera of the D300 or D300s. The only reason I went with it over the D300s is the slightly better low light performance and slightly better video performance. In decent light and/or flash, the D300 and D300s are screaming good cameras.

Now, to buy one used? A refurb will give you a 90 day warranty at best. A brand new D7000 can be had for less than a refurb D300s, and you'd have a longer warranty. If you don't need the ruggedness or frame rate of the D300/s (and it sounds like you don't) then the D7000 would be a good choice because of it's price right now, NOT because some daft sales person told you it's 2x the camera.

It's not as "pro" as the D300 but it handles very well. It is smaller in the grip and lighter than the D300, so that might be a put off. There might be a switch or two more on the D300 that gives you a shortcut the D7000 lacks, but it has some handy features missing on the earlier bodies. (U1 and U2 saved user settings for example)

Another option is to look for a used D700 - they can be had on Craig's List for example for $1500 or less and they are amazing. (think: D300's big brother) No video though.

You would probably be happy for years to come with a D600. It will use DX glass at 10mp, which is fantastic for everything but huge prints (despite the warnings posted above). Heck just a few years ago 10mp DX was state of the art...

Resolution isn't everything.

What you get with the D7000 is a more modern image processor, better dynamic range, slightly better high ISO performance, and more resolution. What you lose is mostly build and quicker professional controls.

I honestly think if the D300 is what you like, then "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

In this case it is broken though... so just fix it :) I think it'll make you the happiest at the moment and probably will cost less than any new body.

Oh, I'd stay away from the D600 unless you plan on selling your 17-55 2.8 DX. That's very high quality DX specific glass and I wouldn't want to waste that to the cropped 10 megapixel mode of the D600.

Do you think buying used is a good option? I would really like to stay with what I have. I like my D300. The guy at the camera store assured me that the D7000 was twice the camera the D300 is. Better resolution.

Do you want the "Pro" aspects as starralazn has mentioned above. The D300 and D300s have much more intuitive controls and are easier to operate quickly, (IMO), than the D7000. So, if you want to continue with what you are familiar with.... B & H has used D300s models at about $1150 for a camera body in 9 condition.

We all fight the money vs. the function question. And if you want to just hang on for awhile, a used D200 for about $400 or so, may work. it operates just like a D300 only less pixels, less ISO. Jumping to the D600 means purchasing FX glass....pretty expensive. Again, this is just my opinion.

The D400, well, who knows...probably available around the end of the year at best.... and $1800-$2000 most likely.

When I bought the D300 I was replacing my Konica Minolta and had to start fresh with Nikon. Now I feel like I am at a similar cross road only 4 years later.

you could buy the tentative d400, but that has no forseeable release date.
the reason the d300, or d#00 cost so much more is the increased 'professional' level of the camera, read more rugged body, further weatherproofed, lack of 'scene' modes.

it goes:
d80->d90->d7000(current)->(possible update incoming)
d200->d300>d300s(current)->d400(possible)

and judging from what you have said you use it for, it seems like you can't wait for rumors to materialise

Just kids hockey and soccer. Is that the only difference I will find between the D300 and the D7000. I am having a hard time with the fact that the D7000 is $900 and I paid $1400 for the D300 4 years ago.

Do you do a lot of sports? If you don't, you won't miss the lower frame rate of the D7000.

The shutter on my D300 is broken. They quoted $400 to fix it. I don't want to put that into the camera so I am prepared to buy a new camera. I didn't realize until today that Nikon no longer makes the D300. I own a AF-S 17-55mm2.8, a 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 and 50mm 1.4.

It looks like my options are the D7000 or the D600. I use my camera everyday to photograph my art work, my kids and I travel a lot. I am almost embarrassed at how little I know after reading the posts on this site for the last hour. The guy in the camera store was of little to no help. At the end of the day, I use lots of natural light and I like nice sharp images...and I have a ton to learn. I just want to spend the money wisely.

Can you help me?