It was back around 2009 that I had the chance at reviewing Nikon's D300 digital SLR. The D300 was a professional grade DX format camera and was Nikon's highest performing DX camera in their lineup, and remains in that same position today in 2012, though with a updated moniker, called the D300S.

I talked about how the Nikon DX format represents a big chunk of Nikon's DSLR camera sales in my D300 review. One of the simplest reasons that this still holds true today is because of the affordability factor. The current DSLR landscape is ultra competitive across all DSLR makers who are offering an entry-level offering, and there are so many to choose from that it's a difficult decision. It's a tricky situation because when you purchase a DSLR for the first time (you may have upgraded from a point and shoot), you are really investing in a system. That system could be from Nikon, Canon, Pentax, etc. This system involves accessories in the form of lenses, flash guns, and much more for your upgrade path. Some manufactures offer more than others, depending on how long they've been in the business of cameras, while others are just starting out and you may not have a large selection to choose from. Ultimately it's your decision whether you want to invest in a system, or maybe you have enough to try multiple offerings.

Another way the DSLR market has been competitive is by playing the mega-pixel game. Some folks have no clue what to look for, manufactures know this, and take advantage of playing this game. Some push the reasoning that if the mega-pixel count is higher, the camera must be better. This game is played endlessly even in the point and shoot arena where you see these tiny cameras that have 8, 10, 12, 14, or even 18 mega-pixels. Is really having 16 mega-pixels make a particular product better than the other?