> are you after a pro quality image or a pro looking >camera?
I don't think what that (clearly rhetorical) question implies is fair.
First, if I just wanted to have a cool looking camera to impress my friends, I'm not sure that from a consumer standpoint (giving money to Nikon for a desired product) that there is anything wrong with that.
Second, what is a "pro quality image"? I know amateurs who do far better work than many pros that I know both from an artistic but also from a technical standpoint.
I know it was just a bit of a jab and that's fine. But I'm not sure why those who have current Nikon bodies that they are wholly satisfied with are willing to suggest that others be satisfied with something less than what they want. Seems odd.
>The D600 is an astonishing >camera, as to a lesser extent is the D7000, which two of my >friends have recently purchased. The IQ is staggering, and the >dynamic range defies belief, despite the plastic body and >scene modes.
Not arguing that point. You have every reason to be happy with a body that is compelling to you and meets your needs. I'm still looking.
And one of the nice things that Nikon has tended to do when it upgrades a line is the continuity of operation. If you know the D200 then going to the D300 is almost seamless. Getting used to a body with scene modes etc would not be the end of the world, obviously, but to have that ease of transition sure is nice.
>That said, something is surely coming very soon to replace the >D400 and D7000, and it is about time Nikon revealed its hand.
Agreed, but that prognostication is long in the tooth. I heard it from any number of the professional Nikon gurus and speculators.....2 or 3 years ago. But I hope you're right. The idea of a pro level DX body with the latest technology is just so compelling to me and has been for some time now. I will be happy when it comes out, but I will prepared to move on to another Nikon body if Nikon would simply indicate that it is not.