>but personally I feel that the chosen launch price of the >D600 leaves a gap above the D300 and D7000 that is too big to >be left unplugged. Whether it does get plugged, and if so >whether it's with a >top-end DX body, we'll have to wait and see - but I'd put >money on that being the case... > >I agree. That would be to leave too much money on the table.
I agree as well. Actually I've been growing more and more pessimistic about a D300s replacement, and if the D600 had come in at $1500-$1800 I would have taken that to be the final nail in the coffin. At $2100, that leaves the D300s as the only current Nikon DSLR between $1000-$2000 and there's no way Nikon would let the aging but excellent D300s fade into the sunset with that massive of a price gap.
There is easily room for a D7200 and D400 in that gap.
>But try this on: Suppose Nikon got really smart (I know, when >the next flock of pigs lands at JFK ) and introduced a >killer mirror-less DX camera at that price point, one with >features that clearly distinguished it from the Nikon 1 >series. Just suppose ... .
I'm generally not with you on that, since for me the main attraction for DX is subjects where I'm focal-length limited i.e. Birds. That means, I want a D400 with a lightning-fast frame rate and lightning-fast AF. I just don't believe contrast-detect AF is anywhere near up to the challenge (yet).
Actually, if the AF and frame rate was up to it, I'd take it in a CX sensor, but it seems we're not there yet.