e_dawg
Storage Freak
Yes, the D300 is at the high end of the semi-pro class in price. But it is also at the high end in features and performance. The AF system, for example, is better than anything else in its class, and so is its continuous shooting speed (with battery grip). Is it worth that much more? Yes (but wish i didn't have to pay that much), and so do others who really value AF performance and continuous shooting speed. But I also admit that if you don't need that level of AF performance or continuous shooting speed, then, no, it wouldn't be worth it.
That's why Nikon came out with the D90... to bring the IQ and high ISO performance of the D300's 12 MP Sony CMOS sensor to the masses at a lower price point just like the 5D did for Canon's 35 mm FF sensor and the D700 is doing for Nikon's FX sensor, albeit a little late.
No, Nikon didn't have any bodies with the quality of sensor that the D300 has, so yes, you had to pay more than necessary to get it, assuming you didn't need the AF and high speed shooting.
I don't think it was an intentional strategic move by Nikon to not launch any midrange dSLRs with an improved sensor so as to force its patrons to move up to the D300 and extract more money from them... Rather, they probably decided to change their product strategy for the D90 in mid-stream to avoid launching another "me too" camera, delaying what would have originally been a Q4 2007 or Q1 2008 launch.
And to be perfectly honest, I think they had to do what they did and include a differentiating feature like video recording in order to compete in a tough market. They probably already knew that they wouldn't be able to compete with Canon in the megapixels and high ISO performance sweepstakes with the pending 50D, so they had no choice but to try changing the game by throwing video into the mix the same way Olympus tried to stay competitive by trying to popularize a new feature like Live View earlier in the E-330, and recently in the E-3.
Is Oly's AF really that bad? Well, yes and no. It depends what you are looking for from an AF system. In sufficient light with sufficient edge contrast, it is very accurate and (if it's the E-3), quite fast. The problem is that the minimum threshold for sufficient light and edge contrast is lower with Olympus bodies than it is with Nikon and Canon. All the Olympus bodies except for the E-3 only have 3 AF points. The E-3 was launched with great fanfare, saying its 11 point AF system is the fastest in the world and works down to -2 EV. Too bad it's not true. When the light levels drop and edge contrast is at a premium, the E-3 falters more noticeably than the competition. What is possibly the fastest AF system in bright light and strong edge contrast becomes slow and indecisive. And, if you want to use continuous (servo) AF to track subjects as they move across the frame and/or closer to you, good luck. It can lose focus lock on the subject fairly easily when competing targets enter the frame.
The D300's AF system is clearly superior to the E-3 (assuming your lens focuses fast enough). But is it vastly superior to other AF systems in its class? Not sure, as I don't own a Canon. But I can't imagine a huge difference between the two either, especially with a lack of fast AF motors in some of their lenses. But it is better for specific things like tracking subjects as they move across the frame. Is it as good as Canon's pro AF system in the 1DIII? Judging by that awesome picture that you just posted, probably not
-- again, partly hampered by the lack of fast focus motors in some of their lenses. It is, however, the closest thing in its price class, though.
At the end of the day, AF systems still have a ways to go. The D300's is far from revelatory. But it remains the best you can get in its class. And that alone can make it worth the price if you need it.
That's why Nikon came out with the D90... to bring the IQ and high ISO performance of the D300's 12 MP Sony CMOS sensor to the masses at a lower price point just like the 5D did for Canon's 35 mm FF sensor and the D700 is doing for Nikon's FX sensor, albeit a little late.
No, Nikon didn't have any bodies with the quality of sensor that the D300 has, so yes, you had to pay more than necessary to get it, assuming you didn't need the AF and high speed shooting.
I don't think it was an intentional strategic move by Nikon to not launch any midrange dSLRs with an improved sensor so as to force its patrons to move up to the D300 and extract more money from them... Rather, they probably decided to change their product strategy for the D90 in mid-stream to avoid launching another "me too" camera, delaying what would have originally been a Q4 2007 or Q1 2008 launch.
And to be perfectly honest, I think they had to do what they did and include a differentiating feature like video recording in order to compete in a tough market. They probably already knew that they wouldn't be able to compete with Canon in the megapixels and high ISO performance sweepstakes with the pending 50D, so they had no choice but to try changing the game by throwing video into the mix the same way Olympus tried to stay competitive by trying to popularize a new feature like Live View earlier in the E-330, and recently in the E-3.
Is Oly's AF really that bad? Well, yes and no. It depends what you are looking for from an AF system. In sufficient light with sufficient edge contrast, it is very accurate and (if it's the E-3), quite fast. The problem is that the minimum threshold for sufficient light and edge contrast is lower with Olympus bodies than it is with Nikon and Canon. All the Olympus bodies except for the E-3 only have 3 AF points. The E-3 was launched with great fanfare, saying its 11 point AF system is the fastest in the world and works down to -2 EV. Too bad it's not true. When the light levels drop and edge contrast is at a premium, the E-3 falters more noticeably than the competition. What is possibly the fastest AF system in bright light and strong edge contrast becomes slow and indecisive. And, if you want to use continuous (servo) AF to track subjects as they move across the frame and/or closer to you, good luck. It can lose focus lock on the subject fairly easily when competing targets enter the frame.
The D300's AF system is clearly superior to the E-3 (assuming your lens focuses fast enough). But is it vastly superior to other AF systems in its class? Not sure, as I don't own a Canon. But I can't imagine a huge difference between the two either, especially with a lack of fast AF motors in some of their lenses. But it is better for specific things like tracking subjects as they move across the frame. Is it as good as Canon's pro AF system in the 1DIII? Judging by that awesome picture that you just posted, probably not
-- again, partly hampered by the lack of fast focus motors in some of their lenses. It is, however, the closest thing in its price class, though. At the end of the day, AF systems still have a ways to go. The D300's is far from revelatory. But it remains the best you can get in its class. And that alone can make it worth the price if you need it.
