Yes!and I'm guessing it worked out for you ?
So I would be better off with a D50 and a Sigma 70-200 HSM then with a D300 and a 80-200 AF-D? I suppose I could sell the 80-200 to fund the Sigma and still get the 300 (or maybe the D90).
I don't think you're picking on me...I want to make informed decisions.
absolutely for sure !
if i took a shot w/ my D50 and my 400vr you could not tell it from a shot with my D3 and my 400vr (and yes I still shoot a D50)....sure bodies add more fps or better high iso IQ but for day sports you don't need high iso (and the D50 is one of the best Nikon has made anyway) and the D50's fps re not too bad (it's actually the smaller buffer that will cause you problems)....after 6 months shooting the D50 + 70-200hsm D300's will be about $900 so get one then
I suggested the sigma 70-200hsm because it's very close in image quality to the 70-200vr and for a used one it's about a 3rd of the cost ($500-$600)
But if you get the D300 and don't get the glass, it doesn't make much difference. Putting a nice lens on a D50 will produce better pictures than a D300 and so-so glass.I do agree with Randy on the glass, but the D50 only has a 650 cam auto focusing system which can shoot sports but in my opinion only if you are as good as Randy and other seasoned photographers. The D300 has a 3500 cam which is the same focusing system as the D3 and D700. The glass is ultimately going to determine whether you get the shot due to light constraints, but if your camera cannot not focus as fast as the glass then you are still under prepared.