[Charlotte]

I agree to a certain degree with the principle of "you don't need expensive equipment to take good photographs".

However ... I have personally found that each time I've got a better lens or other equipment (decent tripod etc.) it has in fact "got me out there with my camera" a lot more, for one thing, i.e. it gives you more incentive to go get 'em!

Yes, that burst of enthusiasm is usually short-lived, but I do believe that using good quality equipment does give you, in addition to the motivation to use your camera so that it wasn't a waste of money just sitting unused, but it gives you more confidence as well. Just my opinion + the way I feel about it.

Of course, everyone's idea of "good equipment" is different, according to their needs, usage + what they intend to do with their photographs.

For me, there are some features lacking on the D50 which I yearn for, and which the D300 (or D200 for that matter) can give me + which I feel will help me to progress with my photography, e.g. slower ISO, DoF preview, mirror lock-up, larger image size.

The image size, for example, is necessary (I'm led to understand) for images which you may want to submit to stock libraries, or other commercial outlets, and/or indeed to make large prints (for sale, exhibitions, etc.).

With that in mind, I am keen to upgrade to the D300, because what it offers suits what I would like to do with my photo's in the future. I'm also afraid of lost opportunities resulting from my low-spec D50, i.e. that one shot that's worthy of special handling or is particularly saleable, will be useless because it's too small, or the quality of reproduction is not quite up to spec, but would've been with a D300.

There you have it, the logic of upgrading, according to moi

[GainfulShrimp]

I'm glad someone else's brain works the same as mine when it comes to justifying upgrades to themselves...

[Dabhand16]

So what is the fate of the D50 Charlotte? Sell it or second body?

[KenCo]

I'd love another camera but it just ain't going to happen soon unless some long lost relation leaves me a little something.......I do want a good cp and angle finder which are more likely to happen.

[Whipspeed]

I'd like a studio light set, think I missed out at the weekend though. Jessops in MK are closing down and the shop had just closed on Saturday night when I walked past and saw a sign in the window, all lighting 90% off!!!!!! I rang on Sunday morning, but all sold out
I'd also rather like Johnny Wilkinson, but Andy said no to that.

[Charlotte]

GainfulShrimp -

Graham - I'll definitely keep the D50, it's worth more to me as a 2nd body than the pittance I'd get if I sold it

Ken - trying to figure out what "cp" is

Sad luck Whipspeed

Edit: cp = circular polariser maybe?

[Markulous]

Originally Posted by Charlotte

There you have it, the logic of upgrading, according to moi

Give me the ability to take the shot, i.e. a wideangle or zoom to get the shot, over supposedly "good" gear any day! Having even a camera phone to hand is worth more than the best dSLR left behind at home!

So, upgrading to me is about achieving that ability, rather than of quality - sure I'd love the quality as well but much of that would've been wasted on me! I've survived pretty well with my 3.4MP camera - never been turned down by any organisation/commission on quality grounds

By slower ISO, I imagine you mean higher, which I'd agree would be useful when needed

DOF Preview I use so infrequently that if it were taken away I wouldn't miss it

I always say I'll use Mirror Lock-Up and then promptly forget. But then I don't use the relevant on-tripod optimum speeds of around 1/30 to take that much advantage anyway

MPs would always be useful. Only change would be that I'd crop into my shots more than I do at present

BTW, CP=Circular Polariser (well, usually!)

[Charlotte]

Originally Posted by Markulous

By slower ISO, I imagine you mean higher

No, I mean slower i.e. lower ISO no. The D50 only goes down to ISO 200, I'm after ISO 100 which produces punchier colours + finer grain, i.e. the closest a DSLR can get to the equivalent of velvia film (unless the top spec DSLR's can go down to ISO 50 ). I hardly ever go above ISO 200, as I always end up with grain when I don't want it.

As for the rest of your post, I can see that your thinking works for you Mark, for the simple reason that, let's face it, you have the natural talent that I sadly lack, and I have to work harder at photography than you do + need all the help I can get! which includes using the best equipment that I can get my hands on

[VikingPhotography]

Originally Posted by Charlotte

No, I mean slower i.e. lower ISO no. The D50 only goes down to ISO 200, I'm after ISO 100 which produces punchier colours + finer grain, i.e. the closest a DSLR can get to the equivalent of velvia film (unless the top spec DSLR's can go down to ISO 50 ).

The base (lowest) ISO sensitivity of a given dSLR is partly attributed to its photosite size i.e. the size of the individual pixel 'wells' that trap light. The larger the photosites, the more light they collect by default and thus the higher the sensitivity of the sensor.

Your D50 camera has fairly large photosites and hence has a default base ISO of 200. The same goes for all the other 6MP Nikon cameras. Once you get into the realm of 10MP cameras, their photosites are much smaller and thus less sensitive - therefore they have a lower base ISO number.

My old Sony F828 had very small photosites and, as such, its base ISO value was 64. Of course it got horribly noise when shot at any value over ISO200.

Originally Posted by Charlotte

I hardly ever go above ISO 200, as I always end up with grain when I don't want it.

As each successive generation of dSLR's are introduced, the manufacturers incorporate the benefits of their R&D from the last generation. That's why a D40 produces much less noise at any given ISO value than the D50 does - despite them both being 6MP cameras.

If, for example, you shot a D3 body at ISO800 - you'd find it has almost the same amount of grain/noise as a D50 shot at ISO200.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Charlotte

Dave, could you expand on what Graham said about the price of the D200 when you bought yours? It might give us an idea of what to expect with the stability of the D300 price in the near future.

Nov 05 - D200 launched at £1300 :- Nikon UK - Nikon launches the D200

06th Sept 06 - Best price £1050 Noticed Nikon D200 price is dropping

7th Oct 06 - Bought for £890 OK , I am a Hypocrite - Just bought Nikon D200

So based on that I would reckon 10-11 months before D300 drops considerably

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Charlotte

I
The image size, for example, is necessary (I'm led to understand) for images which you may want to submit to stock libraries, or other commercial outlets, and/or indeed to make large prints (for sale, exhibitions, etc.).

I wouldn't get too hung up on this Charlotte, as I had a cropped shot taken from D70 accepted by Alamy .... I just resized it to their needs Also had same shot printed at 18" x 12" no probs Yes more pixels help, but not critical