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=

It is often pondered, and rightly so, what the big differences are between cameras like the D300 and the D3. Nikon specifically classifies the D3 as a professional, flagship camera, while the D300 is relegated to "advanced amateur" and barely "semi-professional" duty. They are both 12 megapixels, they're both weather-sealed magnesium bodies, they both have a 51 point AF system, they both hit a (very) high frame rate, etc. etc. All the "important" features are practically identical. Other than the sensors, what really accounts for the whopping $3,200 price difference?

You see, this "other than the sensors" piece of the puzzle may soon be dealt with, if Nikon does what we are all expecting and makes a hybrid "D300 with a D3 sensor..."

Now, if you could pay for example $3000 for a D300 body with a D3 sensor, why pay an extra $2000 for the D3?

The answer is this- Indeed, to the class of photographers who consider, purchase, and maybe even shoot professionally with the D300 or an FX version of it, ...there IS very little difference, or reason, in the D3. They (we) shoot at a level which the D300 type "semi-pro" camera body is more than enough, just like tons of high-end wedding pros shoot with the "lowly" Canon 5D, when the 1Ds mk3 is clearly so much "better"...

BUT, the topmost professionals who DO shoot with the D3, (or the 1Ds mk3) whose job requires them to push a camera to it's limits, these are the photographers who know and appreciate the differences.

First of all, the D3 is made in a completely different factory than the D300, and possibly a different factory from where the FX D300 might be made. The D3 is made in Japan, while the likes of the D300 are made in Thailand. Since Nikon is a Japanese company, the D3 being made in Japan is equivalent to being "made in the USA" to an American. Even if the products themselves were identical, any discerning American professional would buy a "made in the USA" piece of equipment instead of a "made in China" piece of equipment, DUH... I'm not saying that Nikon's Thailand factory / plant is ghetto, (and I'm not implying that ghetto = China, either) ...but Nikon's Thailand plant IS more automated and probably gets less QC than their Japan factories.

Second, there are innumerable features that DO set the D3 apart from bodies like the D300...

~ The D3 has the professional circular eyepiece that accepts auxiliary attachments and has an eyepiece shutter. Not something 90% of photographers care at all about. But maybe to a top 10%, this spec is for some reason a necessity.

~ The D3 has dual CF card slots. Again, not something that amateurs an small-time pros may need. But say you were shooting the cover of Rolling Stone, or an epic geological / ecological / zoological event for National Geographic... Wouldn't you want the security of time-of-capture data redundancy?

~ The D3 has higher-powered AF thanks not to hardware, (basically identical to the D300) ...but to extra software / CPU power. It has a shutter that is rated for the longest life out of any shutter on the market, 300,000 clicks. It has voice comment recording, and a 3rd LCD screen below the main rear LCD, for additional information. (The viewfinder also reads out TONS of extra info, and the LCD on the top has more info than the D300 as well...) It has a live histogram readout in live view mode plus that nifty horizon leveling tool, a higher frame rate, a larger buffer, (and any FX D300 would not be able to hit 6 FPS, by the way, it would be more along the lines of 3-5) ...and so on and so forth; a whole slew of little details that certain photographers are bound to "demand"...

So yes, for most of us the D300, or an FX version of it, will be more than enough. Nikon is more than happy to sell high volumes of semi-pro bodies of course, because remember- they keep their profit margins up by having these bodies made in Thailand! And Nikon makes five D300's for every one D3 they make, which means they'd have to make more than 5x the margin on the D3 for it to bring in more profit...

Take care,
=Matt=

Rumor has it that Nikon is making room at their factories for a D3X, an affordable FX DSLR, and a D80 replacement.

This is nothing new, really, but it's just important because the facts are solidifying, so to speak. We already have guessed at these cameras, now we're just getting the REAL "info leaks" from legit sources.

An additional fact is that these cameras WILL be seen in 2008. At least two of them.

~ 24 megapixel D3X price is almost surely going to be $6K.

~ 12 megapixel FX "D10" (code name for the D300 with a D3 sensor) will probably be $3K.

~ 12 megapixel DX "D90" (code name for D80 successor) will probably be $1K.

I will now begin to advise those who ask:

If you're a wedding / portrait photographer thinking about switching from Canon to Nikon because of the D3, don't. Hang on to your 5D a few more months and Canon will not let you down. A replacement is coming, possibly two different replacements.

If you're already a Nikon shooter and are "fed up with DX" and want the D3, but are "just" a wedding / portrait photographer, hold tight because the D3 is indeed overkill and you'll kick yourself if an affordable but capable FX body comes out for $3K in a few months.

If you're just getting into DSLR's or upgrading from a basic model, and are thinking of getting a Nikon D80, hang tight for a few months if you really need awesome high ISO performance and/or would like more speed than the D80 offers. The D90 will most likely (finally) have 5 FPS, and a D300 sensor, putting it above and beyond the BEST DSLR for $1K, ever.

If you're a beginner and just want a basic DSLR, don't care to ever invest thosuands and thousands into pro gear down the road, but want some quality and features, seriously consider the Olympus and Pentax cameras, or maybe Sony. In my opinion, the Pentax K200D is THE beginner camera to have right now. It has a semi-pro, 11-point cross-type AF system, (something that Canon and Nikon will NEVER put in their baseline models) and weather sealing... (another thing you'll never see from Canon or Nikon in that cheap of a camera.)

Take care all!
=Matt=

As much as I love DX for size, weight, focus point coverage, and affordability, the full-frame advantage of shallow depth and high ISO is something that every wedding portrait photographer should at least have at their disposal...

Consider this: People are *SO* hungry for a new full-frame camera body that they are paying $5,000 for the D3 faster than Nikon can manufacture them, even while the 5D and D300 (also 12 megapixels) both sell for about $3000 less. I'm not sure but I heard that more D3's have been sold in the past ~6 months than the 5D has sold in the past ~3 years. That's a steep claim though, so I wouldn't stand behind it unless I saw legit sales figures.

The bottom line is, the following 12 months are going to be a frenzy of full-frame DSLR's. Nikon will make a 24 megapixel D3X, and possibly a more affordable FX camera with the D3's stunning 12 megapixel sensor. Canon will replace the 5D, possibly with a 16 megapixel sensor that rivals the D3's high ISO capability and speed, and MAYBE a second, more affordable model. Nikon may also do a THIRD, super-affordable model, to match Canon. Lastly, Sony will enter the full-frame market with a 24 megapixel sensor and Samsung / Pentax are also whispering something similar.

Here's the kicker- With the likes of Sony and Samsung, electronics giants, entering the race, the price wars will begin and things will get brutal. Imagine these possible scenarios:

The D3X comes out at *just* $5,000. That's right, 24 megapixels of full-frame glory for a "mere" $5K. While Canon 1Ds mk3 owners will go ballistic for spending $3K too much on a possibly inferior camera, D3 owners will also be outraged if they didn't buy the D3 specifically for it's frame rate and high ISO performance.

Then, the Sony A900 comes out at *gasp* $3500. 24 megapixels for $3500, or 21 megapixels for $8,000? Canon 1Ds mk3 sales would come to a dead standstill, literally, if the Sony image quality is even half decent.

That pushes any "advanced amateur" full-frame body down below $3500, with maybe a higher end, D300 quality body with a D3 quality sensor at maybe $3000, along with a 5D replacement that has more pro-series features as well. And then if Canon and Nikon decide to also push even lower, making $2500 full-frame DSLR's "for the masses..."

Definitely a blood bath. Personally, I'm very skeptical of the rumored prices that are floating around about how cheap these cameras are going to get so quickly. I think that if you could make a pro quality 24 megapixel full-frame DSLR and still turn a profit at $3500, Canon wouldn't be selling their 1Ds series for the exorbitant $8K. I'm guessing that anything pro-grade is going to be $5000 or more, anything semi-pro grade isn't going to be less than $3500, and that's pushing it, with bottom-of-the-barrel "affordable full frame" probably no lower than $3000, $2500 only if they really make it a ghetto-camera.

Either way, I count 4-5 full-frame cameras coming in the next 12 months, and definitely fewer than that for the cropped-sensor market... The first part of 2008 has already seen the bulk of cropped-sensor DSLRs, for sure. One each from Canon, Nikon and Olympus, and two each from Pentax and Sony. The NEXT 365 days are going to be incredibly interesting... (And I will be totally enjoying my DX camera bodies in the meantime!)

Take care all,
=Matt=

The latest rumor looks pretty legit, but I can't read German...

16 megapixels. 6.5 frames per second. Weather Sealing. June 2008.

Other than the date, I'd say that's a VERY safe bet for the specs. The exciting part will be the AF system and the LCD. Let's hope for a semi-pro AF system and a high-def 3" screen!

(Probably the most exciting / surprising part will be the price. The under/over is $3000...)

Alright let's see if this one comes true!

=Matt=

If ever there was a "given" in the future of DSLR camera bodies, it is the D3X. After the announcement of the D3, and ESPECIALLY after Sony's announcement that they're working on a 24 megapixel full-frame sensor, it could not be more obvious that Nikon is about to take the D2 and put a behemoth 24 MP sensor in it.

For those who prefer the Nikon ergonomics over other systems, This will be the 2nd to last "clincher" in the ever-perpetuated debate of which brand is best. By the end of 2008, (or at least by PMA 2009) Nikon's lineup will be the most formidable it has ever been, to say the least.

Now all they have left to do is update their prime lenses, which I still have faith will happen largely in 2008. (Either that, or at the rate Sigma is going we won't NEED to wait for Nikon to update their primes...) Sigma, we need 85mm 1.4 and 1.8 HSM's!

=Matt=

[EDIT] Oh, I forgot to post WHY I'm posting this! Here's the deal: The Nikon D3 just came out with a firmware update, and people have dissected the code. Inside it they found bits and pieces that tell the D3 how to handle "24.4 M" image files from a D3X. (if you've ever tried to view images from one camera on another, you know that sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't...)

If that's not a DEAD GIVE-AWAY, then I don't know what is... The firmware lists large, medium and small resolutions, to be precise. And "small" is 10 megapixels, LOL!

And personally, my opinion on such a camera:

WHAT THE HECK do you need 24 megapixels for? Definitely NOT weddings, portraits, or photojournalism. I wouldn't even DREAM of buying such a camera for weddings and photojournalism, especially if the smallest image size is 10 megapixels. For photojournalism and sports, the D3 is THE camera to have. For wedding photography, the D3 is nice with it's low-light performance, but even still I'd rather pay ~$3000 for Nikon's forthcoming affordable FX body.

However, as a nature / landscape photographer, I would pounce on 24 megapixels SO FAST.... The only problem being, there's no way on earth I'd drag a massive D3 size body into the backwoods; so I guess I'll have to wait until they come out with a lightweight version. (Who knows, maybe they'll pull an F6 type move, and make it vertical grip-less. That would be sick!)

Alright peace out, again,

=Matt=