D700? D300 price drops...

[scottnilsson]

Any word on Nikon's July 1st rumored announcements of an FX-sensor D700 ($3k), a 24mp D3x ($8k) and an SB900?

Unless this happened a while back and I missed it (busy season just wrapped) - big NY retailers are dropping
prices on the D300 with the old "click to see the price" (rarely seen for Nikon products on the sites of major
retailers). One big Manhattan retailer has a "Special Price Available" banner on their D300 page, down $140 at
$1659 US - a newly-typical price (and not from the Boys-from-Brooklyn).

I suspect that Nikon is going to keep blasting with both-barrels; they have the momentum and word-of-mouth right
now, and they are savvy enough to ride those crests while they can. Waiting for July 1st is like waiting for
Christmas; that reaction is a coveted dream for any manufacturer... Nikon must be vacuuming Canon market share
right now.

Travel safely, all - Scott Nilsson / Atlanta

[dang]

Hi Scott,
It's great to see. Canon just announced the release of their new entry level 1000D in response to Nikon, so the FX series should bring price drops in some upper end from both makers now. Great news for the consumer.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0806/08061003canon1000Dpreview.asp

[mikelong]

One big Manhattan retailer has a "Special Price Available" banner on their D300 page, down $140 at
$1659 US - a newly-typical price (and not from the Boys-from-Brooklyn).

Appears the D300 will soon be outdated - didn't it just arrive on the market less than a year ago? It's just dropped another $20 from yesterday's price, wonder how far it'll go down by October when I visit the states again. Right now it's the equivalent of around €1000 purchased out of NY.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it make more sense to upgrade to a D3 rather than from a D200 to D300 since, apart from a CMOS sensor, a couple extra megabytes and the ability to shoot at a much higher ISO with less noise they don't appear that different? Then again is there any point in upgrading to a D3 if that body will also be outdated a year from now?

[jestev]

One big Manhattan retailer has a "Special Price Available" banner on their D300 page, down $140 at
$1659 US - a newly-typical price (and not from the Boys-from-Brooklyn).

Appears the D300 will soon be outdated - didn't it just arrive on the market less than a year ago? It's just dropped another $20 from yesterday's price, wonder how far it'll go down by October when I visit the states again. Right now it's the equivalent of around €1000 purchased out of NY.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it make more sense to upgrade to a D3 rather than from a D200 to D300 since, apart from a CMOS sensor, a couple extra megabytes and the ability to shoot at a much higher ISO with less noise they don't appear that different? Then again is there any point in upgrading to a D3 if that body will also be outdated a year from now?

It's not being replaced -- the D300 is DX, the D700 is FX -- it's a completely different class just like how the 5D didn't replace the 20D or 1D/s Mk II.

The D300's replacement (probably named D400) is most likely a year, or more, away.

It makes more sense to go D200 to D300 to someone who doesn't have the extra $3k around to go to the D3 or $1.5k to go to the D700. Also, the D3 and D700 are FX, and many photographers, such as myself, either have a lot of DX lenses, don't have many good FX/full frame lenses, or don't want to lose the 1.5x crop factor (especially wildlife shooters). It all really depends on what you shoot and how much money you've got around. For some the size and weight of the D3 is reason enough not to upgrade to it.

[teiladay]

One big Manhattan retailer has a "Special Price Available" banner on their D300 page, down $140 at
$1659 US - a newly-typical price (and not from the Boys-from-Brooklyn).

Appears the D300 will soon be outdated - didn't it just arrive on the market less than a year ago? It's just dropped another $20 from yesterday's price, wonder how far it'll go down by October when I visit the states again. Right now it's the equivalent of around €1000 purchased out of NY.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it make more sense to upgrade to a D3 rather than from a D200 to D300 since, apart from a CMOS sensor, a couple extra megabytes and the ability to shoot at a much higher ISO with less noise they don't appear that different? Then again is there any point in upgrading to a D3 if that body will also be outdated a year from now?

D300 outdated? The D300 and D700 are basically world apart. Would you really trade a D300 for a D700 to go out and shoot small birds? Of course not... unless you're willing to splurge for a 600mm f/4 lens while you're at it. DX has strong points, like FX. No use comparing apples and oranges. The extra iso capability doesn't help much if you're shooting egrets in the middle of the afternoon. My point is that when it comes to "upgrades" and what's "obsolete" one has to determine what his or her shooting requires. What makes perfect sense to one photographer would be a disaster for another. For long range shooting I prefer DX... for pretty much everything else, FX is my preferred.

Lastly, a body isn't "outdated" until it no longer does what you need it to do. If you're shooting portraits, glamour, or posed wedding portraits with an old view camera... is that considered "outdated"? Of course not.
If you're shooting in the studio with a D2x, are you using "outdated" equipment? Not by long shot. Would a D3 make a difference in your prints? Not likely. What if you're shooting studio portraits with a Hasselblad 503... "outdated"?? Not hardly. New models do not make an older model outdated.. YOUR needs as a photographer do. Teila K. Day