Why....? This different in price?

[deutsh_nehmman]

Hi my question is so simple

Why the nikon D300s body only price is more than body

only of D7100. But D7100 is best in everything when

compare with D300s. Did that mean a something I don't

know about D300s.

Please I want answer.

Note : the first release price of D300s about 1900$, but the

first released price of D7100 is 1200$.?!!!..... Why? :-!

[Matt Laur]

<p>The D300S is an older design (in terms of resolution, high ISO performance, etc) - but if you handle it, you'll see why people still like it. More externalized controls (less time in the menus), higher frame rate, CF memory cards, etc. It's a larger, more solid body. I like the D300 a lot - better in my hand than a D7100. But it's a matter of priorities.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

I am very surprised that you can still

buy a D300s new! Recall that when the

D70 was released, it was cheaper than

the D100. There are several reasons

for this sort of thing. It depends in

which country they were manufactured.

It depends on the quality of the

components such as prisms. Some

cameras have weather sealing, some

do not. Etc.

 

Personally, I would choose the D7100

over the D300s. Some people have

very specific reasons for choosing the

latter, though.

[georges_pelpel]

<p>If you own an FX body such as the D700, D800(e), or up and want a DX body that shares the same interface what other choice do you have?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Why the nikon D300s body only price is more than body only of D7100.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now in 2014, if there are still a few new D300S available, those new prices are totally meaningless. Just because that camera was $1800 once upon a time back in 2009, nobody in the right mind is going to pay nearly as much for one.</p>

<p>For example, you can buy a used one, in excellent condition, from KEH for $645. You have to be quite uninformed as well as unwise to pay nearly 3 times as much for one that that has not been used. Even though the camera may be "new," the technologies inside are still from 2007 when the original D300 was introduced:<br>

http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Digital-Camera-Bodies/1/sku-DN029991109160?r=FE</p>

[tholte]

<p>"Why the nikon D300s body only price is more than body only of D7100. But D7100 is best in everything when compare with D300s." Because the D300S body is basically indestructible. What it may lack in new technology, it makes up for in toughness. If you like going out in subzero weather, rain, sleet and snow and want to know your camera won't fizzle out on you, get a D300 or D300S. </p>

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>My D300 may be old. But it's still my main wildlife camera. I love it. It's a workhorse & it's sturdy as can be. I have no idea how many actuations I have on it. But I don't care. Until it breaks - I'm keeping it. I remember I got it the day it was released. I was warned against getting it by most. I was also told by a professional photographer who kept killing his at 5000 actuations that there was something wrong with my camera since it was still working. I think he killed 5 or 6 of them. Mine's still clicking away.<br>

The D7100 is a nice camera, but it's not meant to keep up with the D300 or D300s. At least I don't think it is. Handle the D300 or D300s & you'll understand the difference in build :)</p>

[2Oceans]

Deutsh, I think the D300s is the reason that I am still waiting for a D400 but that does not diminish the image quality of the

D7100. I have begun, in my old age, to appreciate that size matters and I like handling a larger body. It probably comes

down to personal preference. I currently shoot full frame cameras most of the time but bought a D3200 for fun and love

the image quality but would like a larger and more robust body like the D300s with a similar or better Dx sensor to the D3200 or D7100. Good hunting.

[Two23]

<p><<If you like going out in subzero weather, rain, sleet and snow and want to know your camera won't fizzle out on you, get a D300 or D300S>></p>

<p>I live and photo in the Dakotas. Winter is my favorite time of year. The more extreme the cold, the more I like it. Mostly I am photo'ing at night long after the sun has retreated and the temperature has dropped like a rock into double digits below zero (F). Thirty mph winds drive the snow sideways with nothing to stop it for hundreds of miles. Ah-h-h-h-h.........I'm in my element! So is the D7100. It sits out on my tripod for hours at time. It handles everything the Dakotas and Minnesota can throw at it every bit as well as my D300 did.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[deutsh_nehmman]

Hi everybody , I am thankful for your replies, I read your

posts and discover a question, D300s is about 1600 $ in

amazon because it's expensive price when first release in

2009?!!!..

If I want to buy a new one I am sure to by the best in ISO,

pixels resolution, movie resolution, frame rate and Auto

focus points. That mean I'll buy the D7100. But..... (i hope

to know why).... Amazon not in 2009 they in 2014..... why?

Everyone who want to buy new one ..... Sure he will

choose the low price and great features.... Thats mean

D7100.

He don't care about the external, bigger in handle. He

wants a great result with low price.

From this I think amazon have to get an advice to

discounts the price of D300s. Because no one will buy it.

(that's true).

Besides of all that I am asked about the price because I

really want to know the reason..... Really want to know(I

don't want to buy D300s.)

[Two23]

<p>Nikon sets the price, and Amazon has to sell it for that. Nikon obviously doesn't want to sell many D300s.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[pics]

<p>The D300s is the last of the "Pro" crop body cameras and the price reflects that. When the D300 was first released (basically same camera minus video) it received top marks for image quality and build quality. The sensor design has long since been surpassed in terms of megapixels and low light performance but everything else about it is as good or better than any current DX body being sold (in my opinion.) The heft and build quality is on par with Nikon's high end pro bodies and you will notice this when you pick it up and compare it to a plasticky D3xxx - D7xxx series camera. I also prefer the pro type control layout as well. It is still very capable but nevertheless I can't imagine anyone buying one of these for $1600 and I am amazed they are still for sale new at B+H. I guess Nikon is going to sell them at a price that reflects the manufacturing cost even if it take the next 10 years to clear the inventory. I think it would be great if they would put the D610 sensor in a body like this.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>When I decided to replace my two D70s bodies just after the earthquake/tsunami, I handled the D7000 and the D300s, it was not even a question that I would choose the D300s. At the time I got two refurb bodies for $1250 US. Even now, I would choose the D300s over the D7100 for how I shoot.</p>

[mag_miksch]

<blockquote>

<p>Even now, I would choose the D300s over the D7100 for how I shoot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>+1</strong></p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I guess Nikon is going to sell them at a price that reflects the manufacturing cost even if it take the next 10 years to clear the inventory.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>It is like buying and selling stocks. You cost once upon a time is totally irrelevant. For example, say you bought some Enron stock in year 2000 at a high price. Because they have since gone bankrupt, your holding is still worthless, regardless of what you paid.</p>

<p>So unless Amazon, B&H, etc. can find a few very uninformed people to pay $1600 for a new D300S, the remaining stock will simply sit there forever as they cannot compete against used ones @ $645. Eventually Nikon USA will have to agree on a fire sale so that they can recuperate something. The longer they wait, the deeper the discount will have to be. I am sure Nikon has made their money back from the many D300 and D300S they sold between 2007 and 2010/2011 or so. The few remaining units left are not going to make much of a difference.</p>

<p>Incidentally, you can say whatever you want about how great the D300/D300S is/was. However, $645 from KEH reflects its true market value today. Let alone the D7100, the market value for the D7000 is higher than that.</p>

[deutsh_nehmman]

What can I say.... Good build up means hight price even

with low features (when compare with D7100) .?!!.

Did you think the pixel size can make this hi price. Cause I

don't think the nikon insane to put this price , and they

know very well no one will buy it (if compared with

D7100). Don't you think that?

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Yup, just go put a D7100 sensor in the D300s body and they'd sell loads.... Simples!</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>He don't care about the external, bigger in handle. He wants a great result with low price.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Deutsh, you are right a lot of customers do not care about the handling and they just want the headline features (many AF points, many megapixels, high ISO figures). And I'd argue for a lot of people the D7100 is the better choice indeed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>they know very well no one will buy it (if compared with D7100). Don't you think that?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All people responding here know how it is to handle a body day-long, how important it can be to be able to switch settings while looking through the viewfinder. The D300 with all its external controls just works excellent. We're biased, we judge cameras for this ability; handling DOES matter. And maybe we are the market Nikon hopes for to buy those last D300s that Amazon still has?<br>

<br>

But when I wanted a full frame camera next to my D300, and the D600 came out with its D7000-styled body, I knew that on my budget, it had to be the D700. Yes, less megapixels, yes, the D600 may perform better at high ISOs, yes, speedwise they're very close and so on. But the second I hold a D700, it feels good. A D7000 or D600... too small, too cramped. Got the D700, and it's a pair of old shoes. Love working with it, and that is what gets me the images I want.</p>

[deutsh_nehmman]

I think.... After replies , the great build up body will cost

difference ... I agree with that, I made a comparison

between D7100 vs D300s . In external body and found

that body of D300s is bigger than D7100, besides the

quality of material of body is different. I think all of you is

right, the D300s even heavier.

I am so appreciate for everyone.... Thanks a lot

[johne37179]

<p>I know that there are a lot of photographers for whom light weight is important. I remember going on location with a half dozen Nikon Fs, lenses a Hasselblad 500 C (three lenses) and an SWC along with the tripod, two light meters, etc. My kit would go north of 50 lbs, but fit into a backpack. Today I can't imagine not having a battery pack on a body. I like the heft... even after all day in the field. I think that it enables lower shutter speeds for handheld shots simply because of the inertia of the system. I like my D7000 with the battery pack -- it has all of the heft I need. I am surprised and pleased at the dings and bumps the camera sustains and weather sealing.</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>I think Nikon has made a wise choice in the split between the mid-priced (what some call semi-pro) D300s and the D7100. For those who need or want the full features of a professional camera there is still the D3/4 series cameras. For those who do not there is the D7100. I had a D300 until recently and gave it to a relative. It was a wonderful camera and one I used in low-light when the alternative was the D2X (to which it is mostly superior image wise but has fewer features. It will be interesting to see if Nikon positions a Camera in that market in the near future. </p>

<p>I can't comment on which to buy because I am of two minds on it. I like the controls of the D300s much better than the D7100 but the image quality of the D7100 and its beautiful screen have me in love with it. I have single-digit bodies also so it is not an either/or decision for me. </p>

<p>It is telling to look at the MP on Nikon's pro bodies versus their consumer bodies. The D4s is 16.2 MP versus a minimum of 24 for the consumer alternatives. Why is this? Probably because Nikon knows exactly what the working professional sports shooter/photojournalist needs and wants. I imagine we are the biggest purchasers of these cameras. The other day I was having this discussion with a PJ who just got a new D4s and he posited something which I had not considered. He said that the working professional sports shooter/photojournalist is more likely to have the lens selection that makes the additional MP a moot point. That may be a market force I had never considered. For me it is a balance between enough and annoying work flow. I find 12 MP to be right in the sweet spot but between that and 15.2 is a mere quibble. </p>

<p>In the end, other than controls and convenience, the differences are at the edges of the envelope. The vast majority of pictures most people take are dead in the middle of the capabilities of all Nikon bodies. <br>

By the way. Shun is correct. If you want a D300 buy it used. If I were you I would buy the D7100 hands-down unless you can point to the specific feature of the D300s that the d7100 does not have, that you must have to do what you want.</p>

 

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Rick, by that pixel-count logic, Nikon only make 1 pro body, the D4S....Oh, and the retro-oddity the Df.</p>

<p>Forget the 600 and 800 series....too many pixels.</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>Well I guess you could say that any camera a professional uses is a professional camera. </p>

<p>That said, I do think that the single digit cameras are aimed at a very specific market, photojournalists and sports photographers. They are designed for very fast frame rates, have robust weather sealing and voice annotation to name three not usually required of other folks. This is not to say that someone might not want to pony up $7K to indulge their hobby. They very well might want to do that. Whether they need to in the same way someone shooting for a magazine or sports team might is another thing altogether.</p>

<p>So. The D600 is clearly not designed for working pros but they could choose to use one. A portrait, real estate or wedding photographer could certainly use the D600 and a fashion guy might love the D800. Many do. But are these cameras aimed at the professional market? Not really. The D600 definitely not. The D800 sometimes and the D4s, almost always. Factor in cost considerations and I suspect that both the use of the D600, D800 and D7100 by pros is frequently a compromise.</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Rick, by that pixel-count logic, Nikon only make 1 pro body, the D4S....Oh, and the retro-oddity the Df.<br>

Forget the 600 and 800 series....too many pixels.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>right, except Df is not a 'pro' body; has too many consumer features (AF, buffer). pixel isnt the only logic, though. Nikon used to make one pro FX body and one prosumer FX body (D3/D700), along with one pro/prosumer Dx body D300). They added D3x which is a pro body, at least in size/body shape. I'm guessing not too many PJs bought D3x @ $8000; more like well-heeled amateurs and fashion/commercial photogs. which is the same market for the d800, which also isn't a 'pro' body. meanwhile, d7000/d7100 introduced; d300s never replaced/updated -- which would have been easy to do w/ d7000 sensor. d600/7100 are clearly prosumer models, though d7100 comes closest to pro DX out of anything in Nikon's current line.</p>

 

[rick_m.]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm guessing not too many PJs bought D3x @ $8000; more like well-heeled amateurs and fashion/commercial photogs.</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>True. It is too slow for sports and compared to the D3 was far too expensive. </p>