Which way to go?

I recently had a little accident with my D300 it is now deceased i can't make up my mind to go for a D300s as a straight replacement or go for the Nikon D7000 of which i have read some very good reports i am waiting to see if Nikon come up with anything else this year so this may be just a short term fix and i will maybe get myself a D3 s later in the year.
I would be very grateful for any advise.

Keith.

I would not know which to go for, but all I can say is that I have the D300s and it is a great camera. For their D100-D300s series, Nikon have recently been replacing it every two years, so if that is the case this time, a D400 should be out in August or September.

Oscar

If I was you Keith I'd look for a used D3 then keep this as a second body when you get a D3s - finances permitting of course.

If its a straight choice between the D300s and the D7000, I would go for the D7000. The increased resolution of the D7000 is significant, the other differences are considerably less so. If the choice is between a used D3 and a D7000, then you need to decide whether the high ISO performance of the D3 is of more value to you than the higher resolution of the D7000 and that's a question probably only you can answer.

Keith I wouldn't expect any new cameras till next year. If I was buying Nikon I would go for a D700 as primary body and D7000 as a backup body.

Ian

Thanks for the suggestions,is there anyone on here using a D7000?

Thanks Keith.

I use a D7000, I had a D300 and after 2 months of using the D7000 i sold the D300, It was the IQ at ISO 800 that made me sell the D300 which i felt was always on the grainy side and after 400 very grainy, Its a great back up to my D3s, Last week i was in California and the D7000 took about 75% of all the images, Its a very good camera and the AF works well to, the down point maybe the small buffer but i havent found that too much of a problem
Some images from it here
http://wildlifeacrossthewater.blogspot.com/2011/05/california-travelogue-day-6.html
Dave