I was visiting the Macworld web site this morning and this caught my eye: Nikon has announced their new, 24.5-megpixel D3x. They are supposed to be available this month for a mere $8,000. You can read the specs on their web site here.
Photo of the D3x from Nikon’s web site. © Nikon.
Mind, it was just a year ago that the D3 and D300 started shipping and four months ago that the D700 came out. Include the D60 and D90 and you’ve got Nikon releasing a new camera every three months or so. It’s nuts! The new body you order today and get next month was obsolete six months ago! (Ranting done.)
Would I get one even if I had the money? No. The D300 is more camera than I’m likely to ever need and these days, I’m more inclined to buy faster glass than a faster body. From an "investment" stand-point, good lenses hold value much better than camera bodies. That makes at least some sense. How often does Nikon or Canon or any other manufacturer announce a new lens design? The optics don’t change that much and, short of a new coating or development of a new technology like VR / IS, the 35mm f/2.8 you bought 10 years ago is just as good today as it was then.
I noticed in a couple of forums people were debating the Nikon vs Canon thing, who had the more advanced technology, etc. It’s a religious thing and I’ve no better insight that anyone else. People lose sight of the fact that good photographers can make great pictures with the least expensive camera and bad photographers can make lousy pictures with the most expensive camera. Your buy decision should be based on how well the camera meets your needs and how good it feels in your hands, not who has the biggest megapixel count.