> >So I feel that unless some serious photographer has a very >well defined and specific technical requirement which can only >be met by some in-built feature in a new camera body, and if >the photographer already has a D300 or something newer, that >the latest new body release at this point in the state of >camera body development is a pure and irredeemable waste of >money. > >That the camera makers have dug themselves into a deep hole by >subscribing to a pervasive financial model which requires >constant new product releases to drive ever-increasing revenue >streams is not my problem. >
I enjoy your well thought out responses and if you are saying let your purchases be driven by your requirements, then I completely agree. I think what I'm saying in my usual backhanded manner is that I don't have any requirements that my D700 can't handle. My most recent photography projects are aimed at further stretching my skills into my camera's capabilities - I haven't exceeded them.
While the business model is not my immediate concern, how it manifests itself in usable product does interest me. It's a complex model for a product that as we know it will likely plateau - the D700 is close go good enough right now. To move beyond the D700 to D3s (an incremental technology gap) is about a $3K premium and that's an extremely limited supply. It seems reasonable that the next offering will be at an even larger premium. Nikon eventually created the FM2/FE2 "volkswagen" models to serve the enthusiasts. I wonder/muse if we might eventually see an enthusiasts FX camera. Maybe in a couple of generations, we'll see the D700+ reintroduced.
Anyway, I enjoyed your evaluation.
To wit older DSLR. I was again review images last night taken with my D200. I did some fun things with that camera. I'd likely still have it if the D200 would have had a bit better highISO performance.