Just perusing the B&H website, the least expensive DX Nikon they show is $497 for a D3200 with kit lens. (No D3200 body only available.) The most expensive is the Nikon D7100 (body only) for $1147. The most expensive is about 2.3x the least expensive.
The least expensive M4/3 camera at B&H is $400; an Olympus E-PL5. They also show an E-PM2 with two lenses for the same price. The most expensive M4/3 camera is the Panasonic DMC-GH4 for $1699 (body only), which is 4.2 times the price of the least expensive camera in that format.
For people who buy into the M4/3 system, manufacturers give them an upgrade path so that they can move to very full-featured (and expensive) bodies. For DX that's not so true. The difference between the high end and the low end is much smaller. The least expensive M4/3 camera is cheaper than the least expensive Nikon DX, and the most expensive M4/3 camera is more expensive than the most expensive Nikon DX.
This is relevant to the mythical D400/D9300 camera, in that it appears Nikon has deliberately narrowed their DX product line with the idea that if you want more camera beyond the D7100 you need to go to FX. This has obvious implications for the lenses a DX user might have.
If Nikon followed a model strategy similar to M4/3, they would have that mythical camera in their lineup to give DX users a way to upgrade without affecting the functionality of their current lenses. The M4/3 strategy makes marketing sense to me. Why would Nikon not follow a similar strategy with their DX line? Perhaps they will, and we will actually see the D400/D9300.
#1. "RE: DX vs. M4/3 camera prices" | In response to Reply # 0briantilley Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003Fri 11-Apr-14 04:26 AM
>Just perusing the B&H website, the least expensive DX
>Nikon they show is $497 for a D3200 with kit lens. (No D3200
>body only available.) The most expensive is the Nikon D7100
>(body only) for $1147.
In fact, the most expensive DX Nikon listed at B&H is the still-current D300s (body only) at $1697.
#3. "RE: DX vs. M4/3 camera prices" | In response to Reply # 1Floridian Nikonian since 11th Feb 2007Fri 11-Apr-14 03:49 PM
>In fact, the most expensive DX Nikon listed at B&H is the
>still-current D300s (body only) at $1697.
You're right. When I looked last night it didn't show up, but checking this morning (just to confirm how right I was!), it's there, and about the same price as the most expensive M4/3 camera. There's still a bigger difference between the highest and lowest price M4/3 cameras vs. DX, but not as big as I originally stated.
But the D300s is an old model and I assume they're selling off their backlog, not making new ones, whereas the Panasonic DMC-GH4 is new.
Maybe Nikon is stalling the introduction of the D9300 to reduce their backlog of the D300s... but as Marty says, "trying to figure out Nikon's strategy will lead to frustration and madness."
The point I was trying to make, which I think still stands, is that Nikon seems to be segmenting its DX offerings not just as the cameras with the smaller sensors, but also as the lower-end cameras, whereas M4/3 is offering a range of cameras from low-end to high-end in their lineups.
Also, look at their CX lineup. At least with regard to lenses, they have a very pricey 70-300 for $997 (way more than the FX 70-300) and a 32mm f1.2 for $897, so they don't appear to be positioning CX, with a smaller sensor, as lower-end than DX. But then, as Marty says...