(Price of) 30D Vs D200

The street price of the D200 is more than 50% dearer than the 30D.
Could you folks tell me is there any reason(s) to go for a D200 for a
new starter (whom don't have neither C nor N lenses)?

To me, the 30D and the D200 are more or less in the same market segment
and they should be mid-market DSLRs afterall. Do I miss something here?

Nevertheless, Nikon's APS-C lens lineup seems to be more complete and I
know that Nikon has full committment in APS-C DSLR system. But again,
is this justified for the huge price difference?

It is also quite surprised that the 30Ds are made in Japan whilst the
D200s are made in Thailand, but yet the 30Ds can still be sold at such
a low price level..

RiceHigh
http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh

The difference is in camera build quality, the D200 being the better of
the two. The D30 has better high ISO performance, but the cameras are
equal under normal ISOs. The big difference is that Nikon can't keep
the D200 on the vendors shelves as it was their 1st mid grade camera in
4 years, and they did a good job, with a few teething issues. The D30
is a minor upgrade of the D20, so D20 owners have very little reason to
upgrade. So Canon keeps the price point low to sell cameras, Nikon can
afford to keep the price high on the D200 since it is tough to find
one. In fact there is a rumor that Nikon is going to raise the price of
the D200.

Tom

To me, the 30D and the D200 are more or less in the same market segment
and they should be mid-market DSLRs afterall. Do I miss something here?

The 30D is in the same segment as the D70s (which costs about a third less),
the D200 is roughly equivalent to the 5D (which costs twice as much).


It is also quite surprised that the 30Ds are made in Japan whilst the
D200s are made in Thailand, but yet the 30Ds can still be sold at such
a low price level..

Because it's a far more cheap construction.
For electronic devices like DSLRs the actual construction cost makes up a
relatively small part of the total price, the component parts a far greater
part.
The component parts of the 30D are lower spec (and maybe lower quality) than
those in the D200.

Both cameras are worth what you are willing to pay for them.
This may or may not bear any relationship to the cost of production of the
item.
Just how much do you think that Ralph Lauren Shirt that somebody paid $50
for actually cost to produce and market? What do you think the seamstress in
a third world sweatshop was paid? Why does the same Ralph Lauren item cost
less at Costco than at a Polo outlet store?
Are the components in a Lexus any more costly to assemble than the
components in a Buick?
Do you really believe that they are?
Look at Canon's marketing techniques, of which the 30D is a prime example:
as noted this is not really a "new"camera. Are the Pixma printers that use
the same inks as i9x printers several generations ago really "new" printers?
At least the D200 is a substantially new camera design, but its first
generation successor is likely to be merely a modification of dubious value,
ala the D70s vs the D70. And I assure you that Nikon knew what those next
generation modifications would be prior to releasing the D200.
This is how marketing works in our bizarre economic system where the
"market" decides all despite ever diminishing natural resources and the
increasingly insurmountable chasm between the haves and have nots.

"bmoag" wrote in message
...
Both cameras are worth what you are willing to pay for them.
This may or may not bear any relationship to the cost of production of the
item.
Just how much do you think that Ralph Lauren Shirt that somebody paid $50
for actually cost to produce and market? What do you think the seamstress
in a third world sweatshop was paid? Why does the same Ralph Lauren item
cost less at Costco than at a Polo outlet store?
Are the components in a Lexus any more costly to assemble than the
components in a Buick?
Do you really believe that they are?
Look at Canon's marketing techniques, of which the 30D is a prime example:
as noted this is not really a "new"camera. Are the Pixma printers that use
the same inks as i9x printers several generations ago really "new"
printers?
At least the D200 is a substantially new camera design, but its first
generation successor is likely to be merely a modification of dubious
value, ala the D70s vs the D70. And I assure you that Nikon knew what
those next generation modifications would be prior to releasing the D200.
This is how marketing works in our bizarre economic system where the
"market" decides all despite ever diminishing natural resources and the
increasingly insurmountable chasm between the haves and have nots.


Just to pick a couple of nits - chasms can never be 'surmounted' - only
bridged, and nothing is 'increasingly' insurmountable (or, increasing
unbridgeable, for that matter) once the point of insummountability or
unbridgeability has been reached, thats it, further widening of the chasm is
merely academic - it's already unbridgeable.

That's the great thing about Usenet - one can happily ramble on about the
most irrelevant things.........

Pentax Fan wrote:

Just to pick a couple of nits - chasms can never be 'surmounted' - only
bridged, and nothing is 'increasingly' insurmountable (or, increasing
unbridgeable, for that matter) once the point of insummountability or
unbridgeability has been reached, thats it, further widening of the chasm is
merely academic - it's already unbridgeable.


Well ... the chasm can remain the same, but the ability to bridge it can grow,
thus the chasm *becomes* bridgable. Thus, the chasm's "brigibility" is not a
static trait, and thus, it can become increasingly "unbridgible".

How is that for a bunch of non-words?

That's the great thing about Usenet - one can happily ramble on about the
most irrelevant things.........


You should have left it alone I think.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1