I'm in the market for a DSLR and I'm looking for something that is as close to my Nikon F4s as I can get. I've been doing some research and found the D300s, the newly released D3100 and the older D2x are very similar in specs, but I haven't been able to figure out what makes the D300 better than the 3100 (the 3100 is 14.1mp infact), and if the D300 is now a better camera than the D2x. Honestly, I'd rather have a D700 because its a full frame format rather than the DX, but I can't really afford that one.
After shooting a Pro grade 35mm for a few years, the consumer DSLRs just feel like glorified point and shoots. I've got some decent lenses, but they are for the most part old school manual focus ones, with one mediocre auto focus 70-300mm. I know about the crop factor between FX and DX formats, but since my lenses are all full format, I won't be loosing anything, and in fact gaining a little.
I do mostly sports photography so I need something that is fast like my F4. Shutter lag time drives me crazy. I was looking into the D2x thinking that since it was the top of the line camera a few years ago it would be the fastest of the bunch. I could be way off however.
Please let me know what you guys who shoot Nikons think.
Thanks,
Will
After shooting a Pro grade 35mm for a few years, the consumer DSLRs just feel like glorified point and shoots. I've got some decent lenses, but they are for the most part old school manual focus ones, with one mediocre auto focus 70-300mm. I know about the crop factor between FX and DX formats, but since my lenses are all full format, I won't be loosing anything, and in fact gaining a little.
I do mostly sports photography so I need something that is fast like my F4. Shutter lag time drives me crazy. I was looking into the D2x thinking that since it was the top of the line camera a few years ago it would be the fastest of the bunch. I could be way off however.
Please let me know what you guys who shoot Nikons think.
Thanks,
Will
Comment