D60 and D300 discontinued

<p>I bought a D300...its terrific. I also kept all my older Nikon film cameras and lenses. As I see the price of DSLRs depreciate, my older bodies appreciate. I'm fine. I'll get a D700 when its replacement comes out and trade the D300. That will do me. I'll never test the capability of the D700.<br>

I have two F4s. One has more than 200,000 actuations by my estimate and its still like new. I keep the faith.</p>

<p>Its both interesting and funny how planned obsolescense spurs panic in consumers and drives unnecessary consumption of products they may or may not need. This thread is a testament that corporations effectively spend more dollars to drive this buyer behavior and gain new sales for more profits.</p>

<p>Its also interesting to note, if we compare this to an appliance purchase, say a $1,500 refrigerator, we seldom see buyers wanting to upgrade every 2 years for the latest model with an icemaker that has been modestly redesigned for better dispensing. In this case its the "ain't broke don't fix it" mindset.</p>

<p>But the reality for DSLR's is new purchases for the latest and greatest give us that satisfaction in knowing we need it.......after all we are sheep in the marketplace for DSLR's.</p>

<p>D60 discontinued? Seems like a no-brainer now that the D5000 is here. D300 on the way out? Its a great camera that is nearing the end of the usual 2 year product cycle. A replacement in time for holiday shopping seems inevitable. The only questions are exactly when it will drop and the specifications.<br>

Looking for a deal on a D300? It seems like a long shot considering they are selling for the same $1800 that was the list price at release.<br>

I would not be surprised if the "D400" had a sensor based on the same semiconductor part as the D90, but with improvements in the micro lense, AA filters or other layers. Video is almost certain as well.</p>

<p>bryan, i totally agree with you! lol</p>

<p>It is true that manufacturers feed on people's desire for the latest and greatest. But, for DSLRs and particularly the Nikon lineup, each new generation up to and including the D3/D300 announcements actually provided needed improvements in resolution and noise characteristics. I compare the jump from D70 to D300 for me, and it was completely worth it, it wasn't sheer marketing despite the fact that the D70 is still relevant and useful today. But subsequent to the sensor, image-processing pipeline and autofocus improvements in the D3/D300 and since, I think a plateau has been reached. Finally we have cameras where they are completely satisfactory for the vast range of photographic applications. Sure, there will be even more signal-to-noise improvements, incremental resolution improvements, and likely faster processing to get more frames-per-second. But the point is that marketers are going to have a much harder time convincing the majority that those are required improvements for those that are not making high-speed sports photographs with just one candle lighting the scene. I have been involved with computers since when everybody used to question who would ever need more than 4/16/64K of memory, so I do understand that technology will continually improve at mind boggling rates. But with personal computers we have people waiting much longer than before to upgrade, and I think the same is starting to get true of DSLRs.</p>

<p>I wonder why people keep complaining about this so called "planned obsolescense." First of all nobody forces you to buy anything. So far I have been upgrading my DSLRs fairly frequently simply because for each new generation, I see some noticable improvements that are easy to explan and point out, and I think I am a good enough photographer to exploit the new advantages. However, that trend is probably not sustainable as DSLR technology matures. In any case, if you don't see sufficient difference or don't need it, simply don't upgrade (or at least upgrade less often).</p>

<p>Some 22 months had elasped between the announcement of the D200 (October 2005) to that for the D300 (August 2007). Therefore, one might expect that some "D400" will be announced in latter part of 2009; that should not be a surprise.</p>

<p>However, I think we have reached a point that newer is not necessarily better any more. For example, Canon managed to squeeze more pixels onto the 50D (15MP), but according to reviews both in DPReview and here in photo.net, high ISO results is actually a step backward from the earlier 40D (10MP). Or you may have noticed that a number of people are now looking for new-in-the-box SB-800 flashes. The SB-900 is the newer model and has a more friendly menu system; otherwise, it is a lot more expensive, much bigger (inconvenient), and actually has fewer backward compatibilities.</p>

<p>Recently I tested the D3X and did a lot of comparisons against the D3, D700, and D300. In certain situations having 24MP gives you some moderate advantages, but you also give up some high ISO capabilities and frame rate, and of course the D3X costs a lot.</p>

<p>In other words, don't automatically think newer is always better. The D300 has served me very well for a year and half. If Nikon wants to convince people to upgrade, they'll have a tough act to follow the D300, which I am sure will remain an excellent DSLR for a couple more years regardless.</p>

<p><!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --></p>

<p >Shun is absolutely right. I recently bought a used D70 body. By todays standard the D70 would be eviscerated for it's noise levels. The way I shoot, from a tripod and rarely above 200 iso, it's perfectly suited. The D70 is perfectly capable of producing 12x18 inch prints though I seldom print larger than 8x10.</p>

 

<p>Just like Shash, I upgraded from a D70 to a D300, and for one reason only: To be able to make better pictures of my daughter's dance competition. High ISO capabilities (before D700/D3), faster frame rate and a good extra grip was what made me buy the camera (OK- I have to admit, I look more "pro" with the D300/MB-D10 than with the D70)</p>

<p>However, if I didn't have these special reasons for buying the D300, why should I? The D70 still takes nice enough pictures for my ordinary shooting, and I do not crop much on these occations (Photographing dance competitions though, I have to crop much). I agree with Shun, it will be harder to convince one self why one should buy a newer camera - I think one has to fight NAS and really question one self: How much will I be a better photographer if I buy the new one? - and be really, really honest about it.</p>

<p>From what I read about the D400, it has a slightly higher res sensor at 14 MB. This is plausible as Sony just added a 14 MB sensor to their new a-380 camera. This small increase in resolution is unlikely to be important for anyone to upgrade. The other interesting, and in my opinion important, feature is the variangle screen that has just made its appearance in D5000. This feature together with the live view feature will open up many photography opportunities. The live view feature can also be improved to work faster and more intuitive. Moreover, like D5000 and D90, it is rumored to have the ability to shoot HD video at a frame rate that is > 24 fps, which is currently available in D90. This improvement in frame rate will make the video more camcorder like. Many may say, oh, I don't care about video, but for those who also shoot video either for fun or for work, it will be very nice to have both the video and still photography capacities built into a single body. Finally, if the sensor in D90 offers slightly better dynamic range and low light shooting ability, then D400 should at least be able to match those, if not exceed them. Besides these properties, in a wishful way, I hope these DSLRs can get smaller, lighter, and cheaper. When will the mirror go away? (as soon as one can project the image digitally at very high resolution to the view finder.) Making VR a built-in capability of the camera will also be very nice indeed, no matter what Nikon is making us to believe. It seems very costly and time consuming to add VR to all of their lenses.</p>

<p>I am not an camera expert, but I do feel that the technology in these DSLR has just begun to take off, and that there is plenty of room for improvement. When I bought my first Sony walkman I thought that was really neat. Now look at what the iPod Touch or iPhone can do for you ... Really if all you care is music, does it matter whether you use a walkman or iPod, but then would you ever buy a walkman over iPod now?</p>

<p>Eric, other than it is likely that Nikon will replace the D300 later on this year (2009), may I suggest you take whatever rumor you read about this "D400" with a large grain of salt?</p>

<p>Oh, I just remembered one thing thant is a bit annoying with my D70 now: The small LCD screen! In comparison, the screen on the D300 is huge. Since I am 48 and start to get "fortytitis" as my eye specialist so humoroulsly called it, I have to look at the D70 screen with the longest, straightest arms I can muster - no glasses for me, Sir, no!</p>

<p>"The rumor on the Internet says that D400 and D750 will soon replace D300 and D700. Anyone cares to comment?"<br>

I'm sure the D300 replacement will be announce some time towards the end of this year, it might be the D400. As far as the replacement for the D700, I would imagine that will still be a while longer. The D700 hasn't been out that long and helps reduce the production cost of the D3 by making more sensors. I would imagine the D3 will be updated before the D700 will, and probably at around the same interval as the D200/300 cycle. Since the D700 is not even a year old I doubt it will be replaced for at least another year. They are probably just starting to enjoy the cost benefits of that line and its impact on the D3's production cost.</p>

<p>Shun, I'd first like to thank you for keeping the discussion in the Nikon forums measured, civil, and insightful. You and Matt Laur offer a lot of insight and help to preserve the camraderie that makes shooting photographs appealing.<br>

That said, I really agree with the fact that "obsolete" is tossed around quickly. I have a D300 and have a house full of pictures hanging on my walls shot with it. They look great and if I am able to make prints that look this good, I see no reason why my D300 will be obsolete. It will remain useful, indefinitely, unless it were to break.<br>

My second "obsolete" camera is a 1974 Leica CL. When I shoot 100 speed film with it and scan at 4000 dpi, I get great files that look very special to me. But this camera is also "obsolete". Also, film is dead.<br>

These dSLR's are so good and the technology develops so rapidly that we can get caught up in wanting to update our equipment all the time. I admit my own jones for a full frame machine (love the D700) but have decided to sit the product cycles out for a year or two and spend the dough I would have spent on making large prints (I recently scaled two macro shots of insects to 24x36, and they look stunning).<br>

There are so many talented people here, I think it would be great to set up print swaps of each other's work and focus some of our energies toward making and displaying each other's compelling images. Don't worry, Nikon and Canon will keep cranking out cameras...<br>

Jay</p>

<p>A 12 to 18 month life cycle? It wasn't too long ago that Nikons had a 12 to 18 <em><strong>year </strong> </em> life cycle. Wouldn't be great if the manufactures offered a body that you could replace/upgrade the sensor as the technology improves? Oh wait a minute my Nikon F, F3, and F5 already have that feature. <br /> <br /> Ken<br /> It’s the technique not the technology.</p>

<p>This issue is always a funny one, and difficult to untangle. Why do we upgrade? or what reasons? And how much driven by logic versus how much by NAS type behaviour (and obviously the product life-cycle of all camera manufacturers is designed to optimise this).<br>

I'm in the midst of this myself. I am close to a decision to buy D700 while at the same time in the middle of a photography workshop which is telling me that I still have a HEAP to learn and exploit of my definitely 'long in the tooth' D80's capability.<br>

Of course I think I'm moving to D700 for the right reasons - to keep learning on an FX platform and to get the best from the bag of good primes that I've assembled. But whether that is reality, or my own retrospective rationalisation of what is really a NAS decision? I don't know.<br>

What I do know is that longer term I hope that my upgrade decision are driven by my need and my development rather than my a company's cycle of product releases.</p>

 

<p>I've yet to take an obsolete photo with my D200.</p>

<p> When the D400 hits the shelves is the D300 immediately obsolete or does it take a while before it is no longer any good?</p>

<p>Any idea when the D700 is slated to become obsolete, and be available on best buy shelves for $600 a pop?</p>

<p>The suggestion of an above poster struck me a particularly spot on. I never buy new gear anymore unless i have to, especially with digital gear. Used gear purchased a 8-12 months after the release of the product will have had it's price lowered due to a satisfaction in demand and it will already have taken it's toll in resale value as a used item. If one is to keep this camera until it's been about 8-12 months into the new product, a much significant loss occurs at resale of the "old" gear. One can almost use a camera for free if this is done well and one is patient when buying, keeps the gear in good condition, and markets the camera for sale properly (so many items on ebay don't get what they could simply because the photos are poor or lacking and the description does not inspire confidence.) I recently made money on an 80-200 f2.8 AF-S after using the lens bi-weekly for 6 months. <br>

The old "buy low sell high" applies here; a D200 at $600 is such a deal that in 6 months, one could probably get $550 for that camera if it's been treated well.</p>

<p>This is fairly typical of how things happen for me. Two days after I purchased an SB 800 speeedlight last year after years of deliberating over its justification the SB900 was launched. Yesterday I received my D300 to upgrade from my beloved 5 year old D70 and I read here its now to be superceded. This does not worry me at all, the D300 is a fantastic camera, my only regret is perhaps I didn't wait even longer to take advantage of any future discounting. The average price by the way of a body has actually risen by about £200.00 here in the UK due to the exchange rate.Maybe I should have made the purchase late last year when I first decided the D300 was for me!!! I would almost gaurantee that in five years time I will probably upgrade to a D1200 the day before the D1201 is announced. none of this worries me. To me its more important to me to be a camera user than the latest camera owner. in this day and age you can never keep pace with development. I think the differance between the D70 and the D300 (vast) was well worth the upgrade. I certainly won't be looking to upgrade my D300 untill I see the Launch of a new body with a similar advance in technology. By the way I won't be selling my D70 either.</p>

<p>Tony, it happens to all of us....</p>

<p>I have made it a habit of NOT reading camera news at least 6 months after I have bought a new item - that saves me from a lot of grievances. ;)</p>

<p>I have read somewhere that the SB800 is actually more popular than the SB900 because of weight and price, so the second-hand prices of this is still high. Regarding the D300, there is also some speculation that the stocks of D300 are now so low that Nikon will not lower the price just before the launch of a new camera as they usually do.</p>

<p>Luckily, our D300's are going to make wonderful photos for many years to come, even though Nikon Marketing dept wants us to think otherwise.</p>

<p>My NAS is cured in the dSLR and lens areas. As long as my D700 and D300 work as they should, I have absolutely no interest to upgrade.</p>

<p>I, too, am using more film again. I'm "over" the excitement of instant gratification and I really like the way film looks. If I'm shooting seriously, I carry both.</p>

<p>I seriously appreciate the convenience of digital though and don't intend to give up or quit using the dSLRs I have. I just have other uses for my money.</p>

<p>Conni</p>

<p><img src="http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f173/oregoncoyote/nikon-d400-camera.jpg" alt="" width="760" height="618" /><br>

<img src="http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f173/oregoncoyote/nikon-d300-camera.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<strong>My new D400 rocks!!!!</strong><br>

<em> </em><br>

<strong>I just received a brand new D400 today</strong> ...<br>

and it's a peach.<br>

Having a Nikon Pro membership card sure helps getting the newest and greatest before they're even advertised anywhere. Not to mention the steep discounts we members are offered.<br>

I'm not sure the expense of the upgrades are worth it over the D300 and don't think it makes the D300 obsolete but it does have some nice new features.<br>

Kidding, just kidding ;-) ain't photoshop great?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Very happy with my D300 and waited a long time for the convergence of performance, features, user friendliness, image quality and price before popping for it. It will serve me well for many years to come and it will take more than a few more MPs and a video feature to upgrade and full frame has no immediate appeal.</p>

<p>Nice try, Eric! :) :)</p>