D300 Price Drop?

Question for the photogs that have been around the game for a while and have been through several generation of

Nikon SLR models:

 

What kind of price drop can we expect on both new / used D300's once the new Nikon body is released?

 

Currently I'm seeing prices anywhere from $1600-$1700 on new bodies. I plan on getting a D300 once the price

drops and am curious what to expect.

 

 

Thanks in Advance,

-B

B&H is at $1650.00

The lowest I've seen so far is $1649 but that was short-lived. I, too, am waiting for the D300 to come down in price but $1649 would not get me to the line-up at the cashier. I suspect it would not drop any further until its successor is annouced. However, I don't think it would be any time soon as the replacement for the D80 will probably come out first.

If you take the price history for the D200 as an example, it started at $1699 in December 2005. The low was around $1300 by early 2007 and then it actually went up a bit, even after the D300 was announced. Now the D200 is down to about $1100 or so.

 

So if you apply the same $400 price drop to the D300, which started at $1800, it might go down to $1400 or so in maybe another year, but that'll approach the time the D300 should be upgraded.

Shun do you think that the D300 is the last of it's kind; a DX body with pro features and feel? Will nikon keep that feature set exclusive the FX bodies or will we continue to see them in the DX lineup?

I sure hope that Nikon will continue to introduce pro/prosumer level DX bodies. I have mentioned a few times that after using DX for several years, the very first time I put my 500mm/f4 on the D3, the lost of reach was extremely obvious and annoying. The FX format is great for wide angles such as the 24mm PC-E and 14-24mm zoom, but for those of us who use long teles, it is important to have the DX format.

 

But they don't consult me what to introduce.

Long live DX !!!! I'm not a "wide angle" kind of shooter. I much prefer the perspective/compression/background blur

of a long lens. I suspect I will always own a prosumer DX body even if I could afford a FX body.

Shun, you've left me a little confused. When you go from a DX to an FX with a long tele, isn't the image size the same? Can't you crop the FX and get the same photo as if you used a DX camera?

 

Please clarify.

Gerald, Sure you can, but you loose pixels when cropping the FX image down and some will strongly object to the "low" 6

Mpixels you end up with.

 

I wonder what the path will be for Nikon. If there is going to be an FX camera with the same pixel size as the current top of

the line DX cameras, you'd get close to 27 Mpixels for FX and 12 Mpixels for DX. At that point, putting a 500mm/f4 on your

DX body and cropping would give you the same image as putting that lens on a D300. The only annoying thing would be

that you would need to compose using 1/2 the viewfinder. Perhaps Nikon can introduce a "zoom" in the viewfinder to

correct for that? Maybe a few more generations out....

I suspect your will see a price drop in the D300 around the Holiday Season this year. That is what happened with the D200. Introduced in November 2005, unavailable in quantity until July 2006, then discounted from the $1699 MSRP to around $1250 around December 2006 - January 2007.

 

Price drops will also depend upon what Canon and Sony introduce and at what price.

 

Of course the drop in the Dollar may limit the price reductions/rebates this year.

"I have mentioned a few times that after using DX for several years, the very first time I put my 500mm/f4 on the D3, the lost of reach was extremely obvious and annoying."

 

I could not agree more Shun. I was out hiking today with the D200 and my 80-400 VR. It's remarkable how often I use that lens at 400mm. In order to get that kind of reach I'd have to be shooting a 600mm lens on the D700. With my D200 showing hot pixels and some kind of chromatic abnormality the more I think about it the more I'm realizing that the D700 may not be the answer. As wildlife photography becomes more and more a passion of mine I'm starting to believe that the lure of shooting clean iso 3200 may be interesting on paper but it doesn't mean much if I can't fill the viewfinder with whatever critter that I'm pointing my camera at.

I suspect that those who want improved DX sensor cameras will see them. After all, there are still the names D400, D500, D600 opened to be filled with something.

Yes Brooks I'm sure that technology will eventually evolve to the point where a DX sensor can perform as well as the full frame D3 sensor. The question is whether or not nikon will decide if that is a priority or not. I'm sure that nikon could produce a killer medium format twin lens reflex camera but clearly that's not where their priorities lay.

 

Oh well. Whatever happens will happen and I will shoot what I've got and make due. Equipment isn't necessarily the deal breaker. I took home a second place ribbon at one of my towns biggest photography shows on a shot that was made with a D70 at 1600 iso shot with the 70-300 g lens.

I'm debating whether to buy the D300 now or later. With the 5D Mk2 coming out at $2700, I am pretty sure the D700 will drop price, and consequently D300 should also drop. It's at $1575 at BH right now, do you think it'll go down any further?

I don't know why you think the 5D II will impact the D700 that much. The D700 itself had already dropped to the $2700+ range prior to the 5D II announcement. If you are talking about price difference, the original 5D is a lot cheaper than the D700. The main differences the 5D II has are 21MP and the video mode, and perhaps some improvements in high-ISO results. Not everybody needs 21MP.

 

"Collateral" impact on the D300 will be limited, but generally speaking DSLR prices will continue to fall regardless. The D300 may have another $75 to $100 to go before it is replaced, most likely in 2009.

Is it worthwhile to save, say, another $100 while not having it in some photo opportunities?

Only you can decide for yourself.

 

If the lowest price is you only goal, it is best to wait until some "D400" is announced. The D300 will have a close-out sale very much like the D200 and D80 are having right now.

Is that what you think? From D200's price history, I learned something different. It originally came out at $1800 and slowly dropped down to $1000. D300 seems to have more to drop than $75 to $100. Well, thanks for your opinion.

Mike, no, the D200 was announced in November 2005 and Nikon started shipping it around December 15, 2005. The initial price was $1699, $100 cheaper than the initial price for the D300. However, being the very first "affordable" Nikon DSLR that can meter with non-CPU lenses, the D200 was in short supply until the summer/fall of 2006. Prior to the current close-out sale, the lowest price for the D200 that I saw was around $1300 in early spring, 2007. In fact, I pretty much paid that price when I got mine. For whatever reason as I mentioned earlier, the D200's price actually went up in the summer of 2007 when the D300 was announced.

 

If you factor that same $400 drop to the D300, perhaps it can go to $1400. Again, this is all speculation. The US dollar is currently low, much lower than it was in the spring of 2007. That is also a factor.

 

I am talking about Nikons with USA warranty and before any close-out sale. If you consider gray-market, that would be another calculation.

<p>With all of the new lenses in the DX format, I doubt that the DX format camera will dissappear soon. But, Nikon doesn't bring out a new prosumer or pro upgrade replacement camera every year. I expect something like a D400 by the end of 2009 (maybe longer if the economy stays in the pits).</p>