Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="stmv" data-source="post: 796263" data-attributes="member: 10038">I was speaking to a lady at a photo gallery yesterday, and she wanted to step up to a SLR for more serious efforts. I am always surprised how people advoid the use camera market, but when on a cost conscious market, I would so consider the older Nikons. For example, a D200 is a wonderful solid camera for cheap cheap cheap, that is a great bridge to future semipro cameras. For a bit more, a used D300 can be found now for around 500-700 dollars, again, awesome starter SLR for the serious budding photographer. Yes, the 3100, etc are great starter cameras, but if one has the desire eventually to reach the D700/800 type of cameras, I would propose that a used D300 would provide that bridge better from a look/feel/feature point of view. Heck, I would even argue that staying used now is the best path for many, say use the D300 a couple of years, and than upgrade to the next generation used camera. I bet in 2 years, D700s will drop below a 1000 dollars. Chasing the newest highend cameras is expensive with limited gains. On the otherhand, if you have the money, getting the latest camera, and then selling every 3 years is also a great option. I am not convinced that holding onto high end SLRs is the most cost effective way. If you sell when the new model comes out, than the cost delta is not that much. I sold my D700 for 300 dollars less than I paid for it. So, it comes down to a 100 dollar depreciation per year. If on the otherhand you wait too long, boom, the price falls off. I personally waited too long to sell the D300. The D300 collected dust, and once I put it on the market, it had depreciated another 700 dollars,, ouch. Anyway, some thoughts, oh, and wait another years, D90s are going to be cheap, they sold so so many, and many of those owners are already drooling over the higher megapixels.</blockquote>

Verification