>Nikon is a business. When you have limited resources, you >prioritize based on profits and opportunity.
>But whatever, what I'm trying to say is I think your >frustration is a little pointless. I'm not saying that to be >mean or challenging, just honest.
You can't have it both ways. If we agree that Nikon is just a business then we must also agree that the market is, well, the market. And the market is composed of consumers like me. If we remove emotion from the formula, which your statement above ("Nikon is a business") suggests you agree with, then consumer frustration, or even worse, apathy, is the worst possible outcome. The consumer does not, and should not care what types of hard decisions Nikon is faced with or that they have had to make "Sophie's Choice" over which line of electronics to focus on.
Expecting the consumer to be understanding of the cold hard facts of business is a bit more pointless than a consumer being frustrated when a company does not deliver the product he desires.
For very few of us are these cameras part of life's necessities or even our fiscal overhead. And even for those of us who are professionals, Nikon is not the only game in town. Which is to say that for most of us the D400 will be another electronic device that we want or own because it is fun. There is no reason for anyone to justify wanting a D400 over a D300 because there was never any real necessity for the D300 or the D200 or the F100.
So sure, my D200 still works great. But I want a D400 and that desire needs no rationalization or justification. And if Nikon doesn't make one then I can't buy one. And that's really all there is to it.