I have been contemplating an upgrade from the D50 to either a D200 or D300. The minister of finance has given her approval:smile:, but I can't decide which option to go with. Here are my choices as I see them: 1. Purchase a D200 and keep the D50 for the higher ISO advantage. I sometimes shoot grand children's basketball games and concerts indoors. I could spend less money and have two bodies. 2. Purchase the D300 and sell the D50. Apparently would still have high ISO capabilities. I could also sell my 50 f1.8 AF-D, as the D300 has 3200 and even 6400 ISO. I have several f2.8 lens options for indoor and low light use. Money out of pocket would be within a couple hundred dollars either way. 3. Wait a little while and see if prices drop after D90/D700 hits the market. My shooting is primarily a mixed bag of scenery, macro, softball games, basketball games, wildlife, and family events. Strictly hobby, not professional. To those of you who have upgraded from the D200 to D300, was it worth the difference in money? Would you go back to a D200, and why or why not? All the talk here about the AF issues, skin tone issues, blown out red channel, etc. has me wondering if the D200 might be a better option. But, I really like the idea of being able to fine tune AF for individual lenses, and the reported better battery life of the D300. Live view seems interesting, but not sure if I would use it. Lets hear your opinion, please!