Why....? This different in price?

[pics]

<p><strong>"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."</strong><br /> <br /> I think we all agree on that (with the exception of Nikon). I wasn't justifying the price or saying it was a good deal in the year 2014, only speculating as to why they are still sold new for so much money.</p>

<p><strong>"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"</strong><br /> <strong><br /></strong>I said the D300 was a great camera for its <em>time</em> (and outside of the sensor it still is). If you are a heavy cropper or have a need for super high ISO's,you will see some limitations, but outside of that it compares pretty well to what is available in the DX market today. However like I said, in no way would anyone in their right mind buy a new one for that price. Nikon is perplexing in continuing to advertise a 7-8 year old DSLR for close to the original cost of when it was new. I agree that they should just dump them on the market for about $600 and at least recoup some of the cost and allow people to get a good camera for a reasonable price.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I think we all agree on that (with the exception of Nikon). I wasn't justifying the price or saying it was a good deal in the year 2014, only speculating as to why they are still sold new for so much money.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Daniel,</p>

<p>Nikon, Adorama, B&H, etc. are not stupid. They understand basic economics, supply and demand, etc. as well as anybody on this forum.</p>

<p>Recall that Nikon announced the D300 on 23rd August 2007. However, they still had many new D200 left, and by April 2009, one year and eight months after the D300's introduction, Nikon USA dumped a bunch of brand new D200 at $600 each (vs $1700 when the D200 was introduced at the end of 2005) through Best Buy. A number of members here took advantage of that sale: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00TCuQ</p>

<p>I am sure that Nikon learned their lesson so that they wouldn't be stuck with a bunch of remaining D300S that had to go on fire sale. My guess is that there are very few of them remaining so that they simply don't care. And perhaps every month they manage to find one or two (insert your own adjective here) people to pay $1700 for them so that they can just let them drain away slowly.</p>

<p>On the other hand, Nikon clearly over-estimated the demand for the original V1 and J1. In these days they are practically giving the remaining J1 away, mostly in weird colors: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00cCTW</p>

[pics]

<p><strong>"I am sure that Nikon learned their lesson so that they wouldn't be stuck with a bunch of remaining D300S that had to go on fire sale. My guess is that there are very few of them remaining so that they simply don't care."</strong><br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong>Yes, very possible indeed. It just seems odd that the D300 is the only camera kept alive all these years while no other model made during the same time span has lingered for such a long time. I would assume (incorrectly perhaps) that every model eventually has leftover units that are hard to sell once the latest and greatest comes out. It has to be some sort of record for a digital camera being on the market. The only other possibility I can think of is that there has been no comparable replacement for the D300 so it is kept available for the very small number of people (in Nikon's eyes) who want a prosumer DX body.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>It's not the only camera that Nikon has kept making in small numbers for a long time; the F3HP was made for about 20 years, continuing for years after the F4 had been discontinued and replaced by the F5. Apparently it had a small market and Nikon supplied to this market. The price of the F3HP towards the end of its production was quite high (close to 2000€), so in practice few people actually bought it at those prices, but Nikon kept it available new. I was an F3HP user for quite many years, preferring its viewfinder and handling to those of AF cameras at the time. However, I bought mine second hand.</p>

<p>I think Nikon keeps the D300s in the lineup because they recognize there is a market for this type of camera but they're not updating it because they'd like it to gradually go away (soft persuasion). However, for the high fps action photographers, the progression from the D7100 to the D4s is just too big a jump in terms of cost.</p>

<p>To fix the current situation, Nikon could improve the mid level cameras by upgrading the D7100 with a 12-24 NEF image buffer and replacing the Df and D610 with models that have Multi-CAM 3500 instead of 4800. I believe these cameras would find lots of satisfied new buyers. I would also like to see Nikon support their cameras with more focusing screen options as they once did, and standardization of accessories i.e. wifi, gps, remote control so that all the cameras accept the same accessories, instead of having to buy several accessories for the same function. I think a separate "D400" is not necessary if the D7100 gets a larger buffer; it is a very nice camera.</p>

<p>I guess one practical problem for Nikon is that they have so many products that it's not possible to keep everything updated with the latest technology and optics all the time, so there are always users who find themselves neglected even if in reality there has been steady progression in the quality of results achievable. However, what Nikon <em>can</em> do, is avoid making artificial limitations in their products. Examples of such limitations include wobbly tripod collars (preventing or hindering the use of long lenses at slow to intermediate shutter speeds with no apparent benefit), relatively low quality live view image (compared to many mirrorless cameras or even Canon), disproportionally small buffers (D7100) and limited AF coverage (e.g. Df) in otherwise nice products.</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>I have had both the d300 and d300s and currently shoot with the d7100. There is no comparison between the 7100 and the other two in terms of image quality, low light performance and autofocus. The 7100 wins those battles handily. There is also no doubt that the 300's are more toughly constructed and have a deeper buffer. As has been said here in the past, in an ideal world there would be a reasonably priced Nikon with the best of both worlds, but this is far from an ideal world unless a few upgrades to the d7100 are in the offing. The d7100 is a superb camera that simply need a turbo charger. I will stay with it for the near future.</p>

[pics]

<p><strong>"It's not the only camera that Nikon has kept making in small numbers for a long time; the F3HP was made for about 20 years, continuing for years after the F4 had been discontinued and replaced by the F5."</strong><br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong>I was more referring to digital cameras (DSLRs in particular). The rate at which technology has improved over the last 10-15 years makes it highly unusual to keep a DSLR on the market for 7 years. Film camera models being produced relatively unchanged for 20 years is a little bit different.</p>

<p><strong>"replacing the Df and D610 with models that have Multi-CAM 3500 instead of 4800."</strong><br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong>I would like to see that as well (and put it a durable D300/D800 style body). I think a FF sensor with anywhere from 16-24 megapixels put into a D300 body would satisfy those calling for a D400 replacement (unless you are heavily invested in DX lenses). I know its hard for Nikon to please everyone, but for me 36 MP is overkill so a D610 sensor would be perfect in a better body with the 3500 series autofocus and would make it a little cheaper than a D800 as well.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>The rate at which technology has improved over the last 10-15 years makes it highly unusual to keep a DSLR on the market for 7 years.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nikon is not really keeping the D300/D300S on the market.</p>

<p>Obviously the D300 was replaced by the D300S in 2009, and Nikon officially discontinued the D300S around November 2011 when it became illegal to sell EN-EL3e-based products in Japan due to its exposed battery contacts. That was a topic we have discussed quite a few times in late 2011, early 2012: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00ZwDi</p>

<p>Amazon themselves is out of D300S. You may see it "in stock" at Adorama or B&H only because they have some remaining ones. They only need to have one available for it to be officially "in stock." However, from the outside, we simply don't know how many are still available. Since Nikon has not put them on any fire sale as they did with the D200, V1, J1, etc., my guess is that there are not a whole lot of D300S left.</p>

<p>Back in the 1980's and 1990's, Nikon kept making the F3 for some 20 years, although perhaps in small quantities on the tail end. Nikon has discontinued the D300S several years ago. They are not making them any more; you are just seeing some remaining ones. Those two are completely different situations.</p>

<p>Incidentally, the D7000, D5200, D3200, etc. are also officially discontinued, but you can still buy new ones in deep discount exactly due to the fire sale. You can find a list of discontinued DSLRs on this Nikon Japan page: http://www.nikon-image.com/products/discontinue/camera/#h301</p>

[pics]

<p><strong>"Obviously the D300 was replaced by the D300S in 2009, and Nikon officially discontinued the D300S around November 2011 when it became illegal to sell EN-EL3e-based products in Japan due to its exposed battery contacts."</strong></p>

<p>Interesting, I did not know that. In light of such info I guess that Nikon selling a discontinued, out-dated camera for a premium price explains why it lingers on for so long in the market place.</p>