I don't know exactly what you mean here; this sounds like "it is what it
is" and I tune out statements like that.

I need to get something to tide me over until I can accumulate $1800 or
(hopefully) less. based on my experience with two refurb "factory demos"
from Cameta Auctions, I wouldn't hesitate to buy a similar D300 as long
as it represents a savings of at least 20% off the prevailing street
price of a new one.

If I could have retained every dime I got for selling the D80 bodies I'd
only be about $400 short today, but expenses seem to occur in droves
when I have ready cash. I had to spend some money on the car this
weekend...couldn't be put off. I have an F2, but I only take about 10%
as many pictures when I use film. Not only that, but I've gotten into
the habit of using digital the way we used to use Polaroid backs before
exposing large format film =^)

Probably by the time I find a used (or refurb) D300 I would be close to
getting the full amount together, but I'm looking.

Not according to Scott...

Sound advice. Thanks for that.

Not much more than $900. A new D300 is about twice that.

Agreed, and a precaution both simple and obvious.

Concur with this also. A few years back I bought a couple of F4's (the
camera, not the airplane) from a newspaper that had gone to F5's (and to
all-digital soon after that). They had a guy who had been tasked with
sorting through the gear and giving an honest appraisal. He steered me
away from the ones that were unreliable. i got plenty of service out of
some ugly equipment, and considered it a good deal. I know from time
spent in a studio and ad agency that anything that's passed around gets
abused. It doesn't have to be ex-newsie stuff, although PJ's are
notorious...even fleet vehicles lead an amazingly rough life.

Thank you for the economics lecture--not really pertinent to the topic
(as expressed succinctly in the subject line--but that's OK. The course
is already set, I just wanted some input and I appreciate everyone's
ideas who responded.

Thanks, John.  And thanks to all who offered the benefit of experience
and opinions in this thread. The choice was never between a D200 and
some other body. I did a cold-blooded eval. of finances and decided to
put off buying the D300 for perhaps a year, possibly even following the
"18-mo. rule"   =^)

The 200 is one I always admired. I long ago decided it's not practical
for me to lug more than two cameras at any one time. I just recently
decided NOT to give up film entirely, so the load will be one film (F2)
and one digital (for now, D200).

The input I was looking for was: take a chance on used w/o warranty, or
go with a refurb with a 90-day Nikon + a dealer warranty for the
balance of a full year, (or alternatively, a local buy from someone who
would stand behind a "lightly used" D200).

I'm still shopping, but leaning in the direction of the refurb, since
that's where my D80s came from and they were fine.

The CF cards, spare batteries etc. I acquire in the coming months--and
of course the lenses--will transfer to the D300 when that upgrade
happens, probably in Spring 2009. As for the reasons, I want to meter
with all my manual Nikkors (both models will do that), and my older
Macs will be happier with a FireWire card reader (thus the reason for
changing from SD to CF). Eventually, I'll be looking forward to the
allegedly better low EV performance of the D300. The 12Mpx vs 10
wouldn't influence me much, but the newer sensor may be just the ticket
for natural light + fast action, a combination I've always favored.

As for using a camera upgrade as a crutch for "taking better pictures",
watch for the Zeiss Contaflex stuff I'll be posting when I get some
good scans out of the film I've shot lately. We're talkin'
fifty-year-old equipment with stunning performance on the part of those
uncoated optics.