a) the question is about the 30D and D300, neither of which is full frame, and Canon's 35mm oramt DSLR are way out of this price range, so frankly, item 6 is irrelevant. AS irrelevant at te fact that Pentax makes MF camera s to choosig a 35mm film camera or "APS-C" format DSLR.
I respectfully disagree, BJL. One of the consequences of opting for the D200, is that the first-time purchaser has, for all intents and purposes, eliminated the option of full-frame format digital photography. Nikon has repeatedly stated that it has no intention of making anything but reduced-sized sensor DSLR's.
The purchaser can then buy DX lenses, engineered,sized, and priced to work for full-frame sensors yet now destined to spend life on a reduced sensor camera. Or, the purchaser can buy smaller, less expensive EF-S lenses, which will never work on a full-frame camera.
However, since Canon offers both full- and reduced -frame formats, the first-time purchaser can keep his options open. Knowing that he may want to move to full-frame someday - perhaps some day soon, as real prices of the 5D are only now $800 more than the D200 - he can purchase lenses for his 30D that will work perfectly on his full-frame camera.
If you think you may want to go full-frame someday, you only need to buy your kit once if you go with Canon.
It makes no sense to compare lens systems by sheer numbers, or to compare lens sysems dsigne for one format (35mm) when choosing a camera for another format. For example Canon and Nikon's offerings of 24-something and 28-something zooms for 35mm format are far less importance than their offerings of EF-S and DX format lenses, whr Nikon arguably has a lead.
I think I addressed part of your well-taken point here above. While Nikon does have a lead in efs lens offerings, that lead is shrinking, as Canon came out with some new efs lenses just recently.
But Canon is also coming out with new non-efs sized lenses, for its full-frame digital, for its reduced frame digital, and, I suppose film (did I just say film?) cameras. These lenses work on all
of its cameras - think of the shattering harmonic beauty! Does Nikon have much, if any, impetus to develop new non-efs lenses?
If not - then I would contend they are painting themselves into a technological corner, as the aps-sized sensor is about at its theoretical technological image quality limit.
If they do - which I suspect - it means that they will indeed come out with a full-frame DSLR as soon as they can, despite their current protestations to the contrary.
And finally, I stand by my assertion that more lenses in the line up is better than less. How can choice be bad?