"frederick" wrote in message
news:1187852244.906171@ftpsrv1...
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"frederick" wrote:

snip

The D3 is out of my price range, but the D300 looks like the camera I've
been waiting for. I'm glad I skipped the D200, stuck with my D70 and
spent what I would have done on lenses instead.

Don't chuck the D70 just yet: you may find yourself better off using D70
images straight than noise reducing and downsampling D300 images in low
light.

If Nikon made the D300 with worse noise than the D200, then IMO that's a
mistake if the option was to stay at 10mp and improve noise performance.
But my guess is that it's going to be good (but no - not a 5d). Take a
D2xs sensor and add a few years of development, and it darned well ought
to be improved.
And no - the D70 has been excellent, but it's time to move on. At about
30,000 clicks, Even if I trashed it now, I've saved more than 5x what it
would have cost me in film and processing, and the results have generally
been better, sometimes much better than I ever got from 35mm. I shoot raw,
and use an R1800 for printing. Viewing my old Cibachrome collection shows
me very clearly how much things have moved on in a relatively short space
of time.

The D70's great for IR photography, whereas the D200 and, I assume, the D300
are not. Keep it if you can afford to.
People worry that adding the extra pixels to the sensor will make the D300
noisier, but if DPReview is right, the D300 uses a CMOS instead of CCD, and
thus may alleviate that problem to some degree.

--
www.mattclara.com