I've not read of one unhappy DX2 owner. It, is...from every review I've read (including end users) a superb camera. The D200 looks to be a superb camera, at a substantially lower price. So is there a reason to spend $4500+ on the DX2 or wait on the D200? Do you guys take the approach that the DX2 is a pro camera, meant for many years of pro/advanced amatuer use? In that, it will not always be the leading edge tech camera, but that's rarely important with serious users. The serious users need a camera that will meet their needs, and do so for considerable time. In that respect the DX2 could be expected to provide many years of service. I don't have to have the latest, cutting edge tech. I do want a camera that can provide a few years of service. Meaning, both reliablity and being technologically advanced enough. Best way I know to compare is to computers. I try to buy computers that or more than I need at the time, but will meet my needs for several years. So the next month after I buy a computer, and a newer faster, more memory/HD comes out, I don't run out and upgrade. I have a Dell that is more than 5 years old, and I only upgraded because of the max out of memory (512). With that in mind, the DX2 looks like a good investment. It's been market proven. It's also $3000 more than the D200. I read Ken Rockwells commentary...err..review:smile: And he thinks there is no reason to buy a DX2 now that the D200 is out. So do you guys concur?