lol, I don't like the heavy HDR type stuff, but it is easy to get carried away in photoshop.

The more recent ones I've done I tried backing off the saturation and contrast once all the other editing was done and it did look better for it.

Nikon are behind Canon's in providing prime lenses with the motor in the lens

Yep. Nikon have some legacy prime lenses that have not been re-designed with a SWM motor yet.

Most of the zooms and a fair number of the prime do have AF-S variants though.

And third-party lenses from Sigma and Tamron fill most of the gaps anyway.

e.g.

The AF motor is not in any 6x wide angle lenses, be it 14, 16, 20, 24, 28 nor the 35.

Sigma 4.5mm f2.8 EX DC HSM
Sigma 10mm f2.8 EX DC HSM Diagonal Fisheye
Sigma 30mm f1.4 EX DC HSM
Nikon 35mm f1.8 G AF-S DX Lens

Not to mention the excellent Sigma and Nikon zooms that cover this range with AF-S.

What use is a DX lens with FX format?
None.
Nikon do not make a wide angle lens that has the motor in the lens that you can use on a Nikon D700.
And who in God's name would buy anything other than a same-brand lens and body? Not any professional photographer I know, that's for sure.
None of the photographers I employ or have ever employed use non-branded lenses on my photographic shoots.

Yes they do.

It's a zoom rather than a prime – but it's universally regarded as an extraordinary lens.

Nikon do not make a wide angle lens that has the motor in the lens that you can use on a Nikon D700.

Since when did AF speed become an issue for Wide angle shots? The in body motors on the D300/700 and D3/x are ripping fast and snap into focus in a fraction of a second, especially given the short throw on the focus mechanism of most W/A Lenses.

None of the photographers I employ or have ever employed use non-branded lenses on my photographic shoots.

Really? Most pro's I know use whichever lens offers the best optical quality and performance for the job in hand regardless of who makes it what it costs.

You can keep your Canikons, I want one of these
http://www.pentax.co.uk/en/product/17531/body/overview/Photo_Digital_SLR.html

And who in God's name would buy anything other than a same-brand lens and body? Not any professional photographer I know, that's for sure.

zeiss make some nice primes for canon/nikon. not purchased any myself but would if the lens that was better or a configuration that wasn't available from the body manufacturer.

It's interesting to see that people think a D700 is the way forward and the whole DX vs FX opinion.

I can't honestly see any reason for upgrading to full frame. Unless you're a pro or trying to shoot images to print at huge size then it's not really worth it is it? If all you're doing it posting to Flickr then do you need full frame? The lenses are also big £££££.

I'm going to get a D300s in September hopefully. I'd get the D90 but I prefer the less plastic and better weather sealing of the D300.

the viewfinders are horrible on the crop format cameras. like looking down a loo roll tube.

Well they're not as nice as the ones in my film camera but I'm not paying more money just for that. For your job I'd go full frame, but I doubt many people on here need it.

Yer all largely talking out yer arses. I tend to agree with this.

So let's take a case in point. You own a D200 and an 18-200mm lens and you've got US$2000 to spend on your hobby this year. There are four broad categories you can spend that money on, so let's examine them:

1. Upgrade the body. For US$2000 you can certainly afford a D300 (or a D300s Real Soon Now) and have a few dollars left. Sounds good. But what did you gain photographically? Well, you gained 2mp, which is not enough to make a real visual difference on most prints you'd do on a desktop inkjet. You gained perhaps a stop higher usable high ISO value–though I immediately wonder if you know how to optimize the shooting you're currently doing at high ISO. Anything else in image quality? There's a small dynamic range difference, but not enough for most people to worry about. So we're left evaluating the camera features. Yes, the D300 has better AF, plus adds Live View and AF Fine Tune. Will any of those really elevate your photographic quality? And are any of these improvements worth US$2000?
2. Upgrade the lens. US$2000 buys a lot of lens. That 18-200mm user would get a modest-but-real boost in image quality and a significant increase in reach by buying the 16-85mm and 70-300mm VR combo, for instance. This gets us into the question of the convenience shooter versus the quality shooter. My thesis is a convenience shooter isn't really much interested in image quality, thus I'm not sure why they're spending US$2000 at all! The quality shooter has a lot of options with this much money when considering lenses. A 35mm f1.8G and 105mm Micro-Nikkor fit this budget, too, and both are lenses that are better in optical quality than my presumed current lens at their focal lengths and do things that the kit lens couldn't. Almost any way I slice things, I can see meaningful potential image upgrades through lenses in this scenario. Even more so if we…
3. Upgrade the photographer. US$2000 can buy a lot of training. That's perhaps two or three local workshops, or one exotic location workshop, or virtually everything that Scott Kelby's Photoshop User group produces (books, CDs, training videos, plus a local seminar or two). The problem here is in evaluating in advance whether the training will be useful for you or not. There are thousands of photo workshops each year, but they seem to be of quite variable quality. Before spending lots of money on a workshop, you need to try to find out about the style and commitment to teaching from the instructor. There's a big difference in workshops where the instructor is actually teaching most of the time versus ones where they're shooting most of the time. Unfortunately, there's no good source for evaluating this ahead of time. So all you can do is query the instructor before signing up and see what kind of responses you get to your questions. Still, good instruction will take you further in image quality faster than camera upgrades or lens upgrades. Thus, it's worth spending time trying to figure out how to evaluate instructors. One good indicator is repeat students. So try to find others who've taken workshops from someone you're considering and see if they'd take another. And one question to ask a former student: did their shot discipline improve?
4. Upgrade your support. This one gets overlooked all the time because it's both a hassle to carry more equipment, using tripods slows you down, and good support equipment is expensive. Still, to get tack sharp images, you need to take out camera movement. VR isn't always the answer, and indeed, I find that most people's over reliance on VR tends to make them sloppy in terms of shooting discipline (see #3).

So, here's my formula: upgrade the photographer first. Once you're comfortable that you really know what you're doing and that you're optimizing what you can get out of your current equipment, then upgrade your lens and/or support system. When you find you're shooting with a body three generations behind the current state-of-the-art, then you can consider upgrading the camera. If you've really optimized the other things (lenses, photographer, support), you can consider updating when your camera is two generations old. But don't update every body generation: you're wasting money you could spend usefully elsewhere.

Thom Hogan – that man talks a lot of sense.

If only Ken Rockwell would take down his website, that would help.

Well I left the D300s and got the standard D300. Couldn't be happier! Bloody fantastic camera.

Had a play with a d300s the other day. Even as a canon user I was impressed. Wireless flash was a nice toy, but limited range even with clear line of sight

I'll be buying a 7D early next year… it looks the dogs bollocks (esp. if you're already committed to Canon EF-S lenses, like I am 🙂 )

The 7D looks good, shame it's not full frame though.

the nikon wireless flash system has pretty good range but you do need to add an on camera flash to really benefit from it

Nikon D70, 2xSB600:

you can get pretty good range with the in built flash mind, depends on ambient light

you can get pretty good range with the in built flash mind, depends on ambient light

Only had one flash to use off camera so had to just use the onboard. Got to 10 yards or so at the outside and it was failing. mid afternoon, in trees.

Good stuff in that quote Vinnyeh. A decent tripod and tripod head is often overlooked. I could probably have bought a decent lens with what I spent on my tripod and head but its made far more difference to my photography than buying another lens.

Happy 5D user here. I like a big viewfinder and my wide angle lenses acting as proper wide angles. Not tempted by the 5DII as the extra MP is not a significant advantage for me. However if they ever bring out a full frame version of the 7D I might be tempted.

However if they ever bring out a full frame version of the 7D I might be tempted.

The whole point (and excitement) of the 7D is that it isn't full-frame 🙄 It's the 'mini-1D' that Canon users have been waiting for and it'll be the ultimate top-end body for those of us who have £1500+ worth of EF-S glass (10-22mm, 17-55mm and 60mm EF-S). Plus, put my 70-200mm on it with a 1.4X converter and I've got a 450mm F5.6 8) REALLY looking forward to getting this body, my current one is the 400D (great little camera, but it's 3 years old now and it's time to upgrade 😀 )

7D looks lovely, wouldn't want the full frame as I like the crop for biking… stops having to carry even heavier lenses around.

When do people think the 60D will come out? My 30D is probably going to get replaced sometime before I go to whistler next autumn. I'd just get the 50d but I quite fancy a video option…

60D is supposedly due in February or thereabouts… you could look at the 500D perhaps?