As hard as it is to find fault with the Nikon D300, the first thing most people look at when buying anything, is the price. Apologies to Warren Buffett, and Bill Gates (this article is not for you). There are a number of solid contenders in this category, including the Canon EOS 40D, the Pentax K20D, the Olympus E-3, and the Sony Alpha DSLR-A700. At the time of writing, those cameras all sell at a lower price point then the Nikon D300. Anywhere from $200 to $500 less according to Amazon. Which is significant, when you consider what an extra $500 in your lens budget could do for your artwork.

If your this close to full frame, why not just go for it? Is full frame worth it? No, the D300 is not a full frame camera, but there are some full frame cameras for only a few hundred dollars more. Right now, online pricing shows the Canon EOS 5D (full frame) for about $2100, while the D300 is $1800. It would appear, that Nikon has positioned itself between a rock and an hard place with their pricing. For a few hundred dollars less I can buy a comparable camera from a number of vendors, or for a few hundred dollars more, I could buy a genuine full frame camera. Some would argue that going for the full frame technology is a no brainer.

While discussing price, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the predecessor to the D300, the Nikon D200. A fine camera for sure, and priced currently below the $1000 mark. The D300 does have a few upgrades you will miss out on of course, such as live view, HDMI output, better grip, free NX Capture software, and a few extra megapixels. There had to be something to upgrade for after all. Although I've heard from a number of D200 owners that couldn't be bothered, and are sticking with their D200.