<h4>Nikon D300s Thoughts</h4>

<p>Going into 2010 I was torn.  My trusty D200 was in dire need of an update.  Everything about it was still just as good as when I bought it in 2006, but the entire industry had moved on.  High ISO performance, continuous shooting speed, auto focus, LCD size and resolution,  live view - these were all things that could actually increase both the quality of my photos and my keeper rate.  Then there was other advance for us Nikon shooters - FX.  Nikon has, rather strangely, not provided much in the way of options for those of us who shoot DX and are also interested in wide angle <strong><italic>and</italic></strong> compact <strong><italic>and</italic></strong> light-weight.  Where's my 20mm f4.0 equivalent?  Or 28, 24, 18, or anything for that matter.  I had pretty much sold myself on the idea of moving to an FX camera.  And when it came time to buy I went with the D300s and not the D700</p>
<p>So what made me stay with DX?</p>

<h4>The DX Advantage</h4>
<ul>
  <li>THe autofocus points are more spread out on the D300 than on the D3/D700, which is advantageous for both my studio and my volleyball shooting (which is the vast majority of my shots)</li>
  <li>I like the working distance of my 70-200 for both volleyball and studio work on a DX body.</li>
  <li>Since I planned on keeping my D200 body I wouldn't have to worry about keeping two sets of lenses or having my lenses work differently on different bodies</li>
  <li>It's a lot cheaper, and other than the ISO performance you get more in other areas (compared to the D700 you get movie mode and faster frame frate)</li>

</ul>

<h4>The FX Advantage</h4>
<ul>
  <li>Noticably improved high ISO images</li>
  <li>Much better options on the wide end</li>
</ul>

<p>My D200 produces great images at ISO 100.  And really good images up to ISO 400.  By 800 I start to worry, and by 1600 the results are pretty terrible.  But, I don't need ISO 100K, I just need a usable ISO 1600, and with sensor advancements in the last 5 years the D300 provides 'good enough' 1600 for my needs.  Now if only Nikon would replace the 17-55 with a 16-55, and then introduce a 16mm/F4 prime, and a 16mm T/S (none of which will happen I am afraid).</p>

<p>So let's get my dislikes out of the way.  Base ISO quality could be a little better.  Also, base ISO has jumped from 100 to 200, which is a nuisance for me since I like to keep my shutter speed slow for my sports work.</p>

<p>Other than those two minor details, virtually everything else about the camera is improved from the D200.  Even in a studio setting I can detect a significant improvement in the autofocus system.</p>

<p>More to come, especially once I get to a Volleyball tournament</p>