I wonder if or for how long Nikon will keep producing D2xs and D200 bodies now that the D3 and D300 are coming soon.
I would guess that a year from now the D2xs and D200 will be discontinued. The D2hs was dropped months ago.
The D300 seems to obsolete both the D200 and the D2xs as far as the product lineup is concerned. And many pros using the D2xs will switch to the D3 due to FX and lower noise. It also wipes the D2hs with higher ISOs and a faster frame rate in DX mode.
You're probably right, it may be within a year. I'm still wondering why Nikon ditched the LBCAST sensor from the D2H models, what a sensor, if it had been me, I would have continued on in development of new DSLR cameras with that sensor, I suspect it has to do with mfr cost. The color and brilliance from that sensor are amazing(I recently purchased a D2HS for the sensor quality and AF speed). Debra
Nikon stated they were comitted to both DX and FX formats. Does that mean pro-level bodies in both formats like Canon? If so, there could be a DX format follow on to the D2Xs. Who knows, if you put the D3 sensor in the D300 you have the Nikon counterpart to the 5D. And if you put the D300 sensor in the D3 you have the next generation D2Xs.
I've been watching this as well... I am wondering if B&H just has a few D2Xs's left. I have to believe that Nikon would be done producing both these cameras (D2Xs/D200) since their successors (D3/D300) should be in full production swing... unless they each see price reductions. Why would anyone buy a D200/D2Xs at the same price as a D300/D3? The D2Xs may have some staying power with the extra reach and higher pixel density than a D3, and likewise, the D200 could move down a notch and replace the D80.
While I have no knowledge of the facts, my guess is that both the D2Xs and the D200 are no longer being made. I would further guess that whatever is in the pipeline now is last of the respective breeds. Cheers, Bill P.
>While I have no knowledge of the facts, my guess is that >both the D2Xs and the D200 are no longer being made.
That's my guess also. It's likely that Nikon need all the manufacturing capacity they can find to get close to the initial demand for the D300 and D3; using this capacity for the D200 and D2Xs, which sell at lower prices, would not make sense.
No if there was a D3X the D2xs would still be here. But no follow up would be a terrible decision to make. What's to stop them removing the DX system completely, nothing. I guess the vast majority of Nikon users will have to hope that 'parallel development' means on the horizon DX pro body because that's what we need not another 35mm body.
It will happen as the way you described eventually, that is for sure.. I'm planning to keep the D2Xs as long as it works and supports my DX lenses and gives me the advantage of using 210-600mm. range with my 70-200 lens with 2x teleconverter, and replace the D70s and D200 machines with D3 series whenever they have at least 18 or 22 MP resolution for the full frame sensors.
The D300 really does supersede the D2X in almost all important respects, with the added flexibility of to handgrip or not to handgrip. The only advantage D2X retains is ruggedness and sealing -- however, heavier things need to be more rugged, because they cause more damage to themselves as a result of increased momentum.
Of course, my D2X will carry on working as it has always worked. However, if I was buying now I would take the D300 (and wait for it), even if the D2X was similarly priced.
The D3 is (to me) a whole different buying decision, because it would mean abandoning my 12-24, 10.5 and 17-55. My choices are: 1) wait for the D3X in the hope that it will offer 12 MP with DX lenses, giving me time to gradually accumulate the new Nikon zooms, 2) take the plunge and go with the D3 plus new lenses 3) recognise that for 90% of my work the D2X is absolutely fine and I don't need a D3.