Originally Posted by deudeu
To me there is one of two things that is wrong:
Either Thom Hogan is wrong about the features to be expected in the D90 or "the word" is wrong about the pricing.
The features that Thom mentions are pretty close to what the D300 has to offer. Actually, it has features that the D300 does not have, just probably a cheaper frame and shutter, and a smaller buffer.
This being said, just look at what the other manufacturer are doing: Pentax is just over $1000 with the K20D, Sony is at $1300 the the A700, Canon is at a little less than $1000 with their 40D, and Oly doen't really have anything in that range other than the E-3 which is more comparable to the D300 and costs $1500. All of these have lowered their prices by about 15% since they came out.
From the features mentioned by Thom, the D90 is going to be better than all of these, is newer, and has been awaited for a while. Nikon will be able to sell them easily at $1300, why would they sell them for less?
Or Thom is wrong... That would not be the first time!
I would say that Nikon wants to kill Canon on two most important markets (US and Japan) and if the pricing and features are correct except for the 6.5 fps the 40D cannot hold a candle to such a camera. So Canon both lose market share and margins as they cut more and more the price. Canon and it's "slow, incremental change" of the medium range from the 20D to 40D just got what they deserved.
And about the price of the D90 I guess after about 800k D300 sold they have pretty much covered up for R&D costs and making other cameras with most of the same "guts" inside only improve their costs per unit.
Radu