Is there anyone on here with experience of both the D90 and the D300? I'm looking for a new DSLR (to upgrade from my D80 and use all my existing lenses, so I'm sticking with Nikon) and just can't choose between them. Having tried them both out in the shop the other day I preferred the feel and the viewfinder of the D300, but it's bigger and heavier and much more expensive.
I'm really confused by the reviews, the majority of which imply that the D300 has better image quality, but Ken Rockwell (yes, I know he's a pillock) but the images are on his site for everyone to see) points out that the D90 seems to have better low light image quality, and they are both pretty much identical in normal light.
I'm also slightly loathe to buy something as expensive as the D300 when it is at least halfway through its product cycle and may well get replaced in the next few months. I know that it'll still be just as good a camera when the replacement comes out etc etc, but if I were able to get a much better camera for the same money by waiting a month or two I'd be happy to stick with my D80 for a bit longer.
I'm not at all bothered about the video on the D90, which I can barely see myself using, nor am I fussed about the D300 being faster - I don't really do action photos (as you'll see from Flickr and Shutterchance) so higher speed doesn't bother me. This is primarily about image quality - including focus and metering accuracy - and usability.