Looking at my camera it seems like there's room for a SD slot and video? It seemed like an easy implementation on the 300s. I'd love to shoot FX video, it and a second card slot is all my 700 lacks. Can't afford a new camera so I'll live with the video from my P7000.
#1. "RE: Why didn't Nikon make a D700s?" In response to Reply # 0
Maybe they did -- the D600. As I recollect, the D300 and 300s came pretty closely together. The D700 has been around for a good while and maybe they simply decided the next itteration was the D800 and then the D600 -- on the surface, the D600 appears to be an evolutionary step from the D700, while the D800 may be a horse of a different nature. As unimportant as video is to me, I am staynig with the D700 for now, especially while the gremlins seem to have roles in the initial issues.
#2. "RE: Why didn't Nikon make a D700s?" In response to Reply # 1
The D600 does seem like a hybrid camera, combining elements of the D700, D800 and D7000. Not sure it's positioned as the replacement for the D700 (which I wish Nikon would finally focus their attention on) so much as a step up from the D7000.
#4. "RE: Why didn't Nikon make a D700s?" In response to Reply # 3
Rancho Cordova, US
I agree that the D700 does not have a replacement in the D600 due to the reduced feature. Nikon markets the D600 as an entry level FX camera, vs the D800 advance amateur/semi-pro/pro and D4 (pro cameras).
I don't think that the D700 (and D300/300s) will have traditional replacements as Nikon have several lines now in production: D3--- series (entry DX), D--- (amateur DX), D---(advanced amateur DX), D6-- (FX entry), D8-- (advanced amateur, semi-pro/pro FX), D- (pro FX).
The D3/D700/D300 bodies seems to represent the older technology and older naming convention.
I think Nikon with have DX-only bodies as D---and amateur FX as D--- and pro as D-. Given that FX bodies can be shot in DX mode albeit, lower MP but with cleaner high ISO performance, I wonder if Nikon needs a D300/300s replacement.