| Joined: | Thu Apr 19th, 2012 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4424 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
Eric wrote:
These incremental improvements are not proportional to the typical price increments we have to pay for a 'new' body. It's one of the reasons I frequently skip a version or two. The launch prices are invariably about the same but by missing out a couple of stages you get a more noticeable step improvement for the price. It's a Yorkshire thing.
Which is why I have never been tempted by the D300 and none of the other DX offerings have been developed along the lines I need, except for the D3100 which I use as a snapshot camera and almost lives in my tool box, hence the scratched lens and bumps and bruises!
In fairness I think you missed a significant step not going to the D300. Not quite the magnitude of the D2X to D3 step change, but the D300 was in the same wave of urgent upgrades designed to win back users who were drifting towards Canon for better high ISO noise performance. And as such did make a significant step improvement worth buying into.
I felt, and said so at the time on this forum, that the D300 would become a sort of classic, unlikely to be upgraded. It did of course get the S upgrade but as we know, no D400.
I am sure the newer sensors in the D7xxx and D3xxx bodies are now superior to the D300 but don't have the solid body feel of the earlier Dxxx series bodies. So not the complete package for many.
____________________
Eric