Upload & Sell: Off
Its 12 MP, Kent, not 10. If you had tried one (D700) and could see what its does with its 12 MP you would be amazed. You have to understand that not all MPs are created equal, the pixels actually come in different sizes. Its not more is better.
Got mixed up on the 10mp thing. I did try a D700 on two different weekends and shot a lot with it day & night along with D300. I honestly didn't see much difference. Certainly not enough to justify spending ~$4,000 (net) to upgrade my lenses to FX. Just to be sure, I took a group of five similar shots each with D300, D700, D80, (using tripod) & printed to 8x10 and also saved in TIFF. I showed these in person to one of the magazine editors I often submit to and asked him to pick out the shots he liked, as usual. He actually selected more from the D300 & D80 piles than he did the D700 pile. I asked if he could see much difference in the image quality of the shots and tell me how many different cameras I might have used. He studied them, but could not consistently see any difference. The bottom line for me is if my customers can't see any difference, why should I pay $4,000 for camera & lens changes? I refuse to buy crappy old lenses just so I can afford a camera. I am constantly running into problems with not enough res from D300 and D700 is no better. I sometimes have to crop down and neither camera has all that many pixels to begin with. The reach factor on DX is important to me as I find I often shoot my 70-200mm f2.8 VR at 200mm. To get the same quality on an FX I'd have to buy the Nikon 300mm f2.8 VR. That's about $5,000 last I looked. What do I gain by doing that?
The historical trend on cameras has been the formats are getting smaller. Very few people are buying FX, and I wonder how viable it is long term. Time will tell. One thing is certain though. After reading internet message boards since about 1995 I've seen that there is always the "hot" camera everyone is talking about how great it is. At one time it was the N90s. Another time not so long ago it was the D100. As soon as the next camera comes out, the prices on the former "hot" model begin to drop like crazy, even though they are more evolutionary than revolutionary. This all costs thousands of dollars, and I don't want to play the "hot" camera game. I've been putting the money into lighting system ($6K), lenses ($6K), and travel. (I've also been buying LF historical lenses, especially pre-1865.) It appears that the best performance/cost strategy seems to be to stick to Nikon's mid priced bodes (D300/D7000) and upgrade every other model. So, that's what I've been doing. I'm positive I haven't lost any sales doing this. So no, there's no chance I'll buy a used D700 for even $1,200 but instead am looking at what a D400 will do. If I was a full time wedding photographer my needs might be different. What I really want is more resolution.
As for prices of next model Nikons, the pattern has been that Nikon keeps the price point. I'm expecting a D400 to be right around $1,500 and a D800 to be right around $2,800. Currency fluctuations not included, of course. Nikon has seemed to stick to price points pretty consistently.
Kent in SD