It was only a matter of time until the D300 started being available for as little as $1475 in "excellent condition"... Or $1600 in "like new" condition. Seeing as $1800 is already an incredible bargain for such a camera new, I'd be jumping on the $1475 EX condition camera so fast, KEH.com wouldn't even know what hit them. ...If I didn't already have a backup D200 that I hardly ever use, that is. Get YOUR D300 today!

Actually if you wait until the end of the year, when Nikon makes the D10 or whatever FX version of the D300 there is, I'd say that the D300 will drop far lower in price. THAT is when I will weigh my options- Either get a 2nd D300 for probably as little as $1250, or spend upwards of $3000 on an FX version of the D300. SUCH a tough call. I'll probably end up getting a 2nd D300 and some more lenses / flashes. Always better to have killer lenses on a decent body than a killer body without any good lenses!

=Matt=

I'm definitely looking forward to Sigma's 50mm f/1.4 HSM. At $499, it is going to be a fantastic seller assuming it is as sharp as the current 50 1.4's from Canon and Nikon.

Both Nikon AND Canon have never cared to make a pro-quality 50 1.4. Canon insists on making their only 50mm "L" lens an f/1.2, leaving their 50 1.4 with plastic construction and the cheapo "fake" style of USM autofocus. For Nikon, well, the 50 1.4 is all we have; seeing as the Nikon 50 1.2 is still manual focus. The Nikon 50 1.4 is plastic, and often very soft unless you get a good copy. Some of the 50 1.4's out there are indeed very sharp, but the overal quality of the lens is nothing like a Canon L lens.

That is why I look forward to Sigma's pro (EX) quality 50 1.4 at just $499. That's only $200 more than the Nikon, and a whopping $900 LESS than Canon's 50 1.2. Hopefully the Sigma will be at least as sharp as the Nikon, if not sharper, and almost as fast-focusing as the Canon, if not equally as fast. It would make a perfect portrait lens on DX.

There is of course the possibility that the Sigma will just not be sharp. It has metal construction and HSM autofocus going for it, that's a given, but sharpness is the one thing that you can't possibly assess until the lens hits the shelves and actual images are captured. If the Sigma just isn't sharp, I guess I'll wait a little more and see if Nikon decides to make some new, pro-quality SWM f/1.4 primes. I have a hunch however that I'll end up with the Sigma... I just don't know if I should be buying a new lens this year!

=Matt=

more icanhascheezburger pictures...

=Matt=

It is astonishing sometimes how quickly we forget technology that is just one or two generations old.

While people desperately rush to purchase the $2000 Canon 5D, the $4500 Canon 1D mk3, and the whopping $8000 Canon 1Ds mk3, the older generation bodies just plummet in price.

The full-frame, fully-professional, rugged, environmentally sealed Canon 1Ds can be had for like, $1800. Or less if you're willing to buy on Ebay etc. The 1.3x, high-speed, legendary sports camera, the Canon 1D mk2, can also be found for under $2000. That's 8 frames per second, 45-point pro-series AF, and all the other pro features and design qualities you may want, for the price of a 5D.

I'm just sayin'!!!

If you're heading to the Amazon, Antarctica, or the Sahara, do your 5D a favor and leave it at home. It might not come back alive. Or if you're going to ANYWHERE you might be mugged for your camera gear, do you really want to have $10,000 worth of f/2.8, mk2 / mk3 around your neck? If I were going to any of those kinds of places, I'd take a 1Ds, a 17-40 L, a 70-200 f/4 L IS, and a 50 1.4. That's it. None of this cutting-edge body nonsense, none of that big, heavy, expensive f/2.8 nonsense.

Actually I'd just take my D300 and my lighter / smaller / cheaper 2.8 DX zooms, but that's another debate for another time...

But in general, my long-time readers will know that I'm a strong proponent of buying older gear. The VALUE is often far greater than the latest and greatest stuff on the shelves at your local camera store.

And to my credit I do STILL consider getting a D2Hs, just because it's a classic pro camera, and can output RAW at 4 megapixels which would be really nice for a lot of the work I do...

=Matt=

Ouch, Phil Askey...

Indeed, the DPR lens review of the Nikon 70-200 VR confirms the fears of other professional photographers who recently upgraded from DX to FX:

The 70-200, announced in 2002 with it's slim and sexy design, was engineered to be a killer lens on the DX crop, with very, very little consideration as to what might happen if Nikon "went full frame" half a decade later... It's almost a DX lens that just happens to cover the full 35mm frame. Ouch.

Basically, just outside the DX "frame", the lens falls to pieces in every department- sharpness, chromatic aberration, and vignetting. At ANY aperture. It's not as bad at the wide end as it is at the telephoto end, but still... Let's just say I'd laugh at you if you wanted to go shoot landscapes with it.

Chances are, and this is what the review itself called for, Nikon will "update" the lens this year, seeing as they are on an amazing roll with their other f/2.8 primes designed specifically for the D3- The 14-24 f/2.8 and the 24-70 f/2.8 basically set a new standard for sharpness, beating even prime lenses. So, if you already own the 70-200 and shoot DX, be aware that going to FX may be a bit of a surprise. If you already shoot FX or plan on it in the near future, then you may want to off-load the 70-200 and upgrade to a "mk2" when it comes out.

Sadly, the lens will probably be big and huge, maybe bigger and heavier than Canon's behemoth 70-200 2.8...

Aaaannnnd, reason #1 why I love DX! My Sigma 50-150 2.8 DC is so cute, I just love it. Under 6" long and less than 2 lbs, it just rocks...

=Matt=