The d300 does actually best the competition in it’s price range on pretty much everything except resolution, but images bear out that it has at least as much detail despite the 2-3mp lag behind the Canon and Pentax models.

A d800…now there’s a gap. A d700 with a d3x sensor would destroy the competition. I almost wonder if Nikon is holding back on it to be nice to Canon/Sony. No, really, would anybody have bought an A900 if Nikon made something similar for under a grand more? I’ve read articles about the Japanese tech companies consulting each other on when they are going to release stuff, out of courtesy.

Maybe we’re watching the corporate version of professional wrestling and we don’t even know it.

Nikon is expecting the 2010 fiscal year (April 2009 to March 2010) to come in at 95 Yen average to the U.S. dollar. 2009 came in at 101 Yen, 2008 at 114 and 2007 at 120.163, so with today’s rate, we’re down over 20% from 2007.

I think the dollar would have to hit at least 105 Yen and stay there before you’d see any discounts. And I don’t think Nikon would lower prices at that point, but they might offer rebates or simply might stop continually raising prices.

I understand the reasons for the price increases and I understand that Nikon doesn’t want market share that comes without margin, but lens prices are really starting to get ridiculous.

180mm is totaly strange focal length and with tc’s you loose againa

better 200mm/2.8

The D300/D700 form factor is great for heavy lenses like the many of the zooms: 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 VR. On the other hand, they are not that great for the AF-D primes: AF-D 24mm, 35mm, 50mm. These lenses, imho, are too small for these cameras. In addition, the barrel turns when focusing making them difficult to get a good grip. The D300/D700 need bigger AF-S mid-range primes. On the other hand, the AF-D mid-range primes are fantastic for the D40/D5K type of cameras, but these cameras do not come with a built- in motor. OK, manual focus them – no focusing screen.

What is Nikon doing? Sitting on their hands to undo the runarounds they created. They have introduced just one lens since the D40/D40x: the 35mm DX f/1.8. In fact, it is the only DX prime they ever came out with.

The success of any camera/lens manufacturer is their whole system. Some might prefer the DX 35mm f/1.8 while others the AF-S 35mm f/1.4 or even the AI-S 35mm f/1.4, if they were available. You cannot go by what Nikon is doing: “If it sells, make it, and if it doesn’t, discontinue it.” You do not market lens by lens, but the whole system.

That leads me to thoughts about getting a second body / replacement. I love the D40’s form factor and as my hands aren’t too large, I’m not actually willing to get anything bigger – that includes D5000. So something with it’s specs and the D40/D60 body would be just great!

However as many people are making wish lists here I’d like to add my 5 cent. Me liking small size doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like better specs. I’m through with my dream of a D40 with a revised 6 mpix sensor and the processing power of the D3. I think that would lead to 9 fps, almost noise free ISO 3200 at a 1000-1200 $ pricepoint but I accepted that it’s not going to happen.

I still hope though, that the D3000/D4000 will not be the younger and poorer brother of the D5000 but an equal alternative concentrating on photography. I’m talking larger VF (D300 size and quality would be superb but I might be asking too much), 5 or more fps, ISO range between 50-6400, second dial wheel up front, optional grip, maybe some kind of a built-in tilt flash (just like Panasonics L1 and LC1 used to have – there were some rumours about it) and a combined programm/ISO dial like on Canon’s G10. What it doesn’t need would be an articulating LCD, video, art filters and programs like portrait/landscape/etc. LiveView would be nice but not essential. Oh yeah, if it wasn’t obviuos from my post – some kind of anti-dust.

Santa, if you read that, please talk to Nikon! Pretty please