>I'm sorry...but after this much time has elapsed, it seems >unavoidable to conclude that Nikon has chosen to ignore this >segment of its market. The D300s was never an upgrade for the >D300...except for the YouTube video makers, and few of them >I'd bet. The D300s which have been sold were the result of >those buyers not having a choice, if they wanted the top of >the line prosumer APS-c DSLR. > >And the D800 is tangential, not sequential to the D300. It >does not carry forward the features of the D300; it is for a >different market segment. That some D300 users have bought >the D800 can be put down in many cased to...wait for >it...AGAIN, no other choice. > >I waited, and waited, was frustrated, expressed frustration, >and final threw in the towel. My DSLR cash fund went instead >to Sony, for a prosumer level video camera. I'll remain in >the DSLR dead end that the D300 has so far led to. > >It brings a wry smile to my face every time someone suggests >that the D400 is just around the corner. It isn't, of course, >but for me, and numerous others, it no longer matters. > >(you can check out my photographic bona fides at: > >www.flickr.com/vidterry )
Here's the thing - with the tsunami and the floods in Thailand, Nikon almost certainly had to make some choices about which platforms they needed to prioritize, and I'm guessing the D400 lost. Maybe they killed it entirely. Maybe they postponed it. Maybe they merged it with the also-rumored D600 (which, basd on the specs I've seen sounds a lot more like a four-digit model/D800 than a three-digit model/D600, but whatever). Who knows? I sincerely doubt Nikon's intention is to frustrate you or make poor choices. Businesses have to make hard decisions sometimes, and frankly I'm astounded how well Nikon navigated the two disasters.