Given that plenty of people were buying the D300 in preference to a Canon camera, and others were whining that Canon did not take APS-C seriously, I'm sure that this is a significant camera. I'm also sure that Canon looked with envy at Nikon being able to sell an expensive APS-C camera in large numbers.
I think in it is good that Nikon was able to continue to sell the D300 well at the higher price than the 40 and 50Ds, because the Nikon did have superior qualitative features over both, and I say this as a buyer of the 50D.
I am not sure that the Canon execs felt 'envy' over the D300 sales, but what they did see was that a very large portion of consumers were willing to dig a bit deeper into their wallets to
get those quality features, which is good that the people who make decisions see this IMO.
For what this clearly did was encourage Canon to surpass the D300 this time around, pretty much on every level now, cutting no corners in quality this time, and then to offer this new full-featured APS-C camera for a slightly less expensive price than the D300s. Nikon's eventual response to this, of course, will be to try to trump Canon in some way ... as they did to the 1DsMkIII with Nikon's wonderful D3x ... the trouble is though, with Nikon, they seldom add the value in 'price' like Canon does, but instead make you
pay for it (as the D3x came out at a staggering price point compared to its comp, good as it was as a camera).
No, it also adds the high prices that characterise the most recent pro lenses e.g. 17mm TSE. It's almost as if some of these recent announcements are an excuse to raise prices. The D300s adds a few hundred quid to the D300 cost.
I think it's good that the price points of these cameras remain high (but not too high) as it affirms their value in the market. I think, for what you get, that the 7D and the D300s (along with the 5DMkII and D700) are the best values in digital SLRs, giving the 'most camera' for the least money.
.