I moved from the D200/D2Hs to the D700. I still have the D2Hs. I like it because of it's small file size, pleasing out of the camera images, fast focusing speed, fast frame rate and the placement of some of the AF sensors at the edge of the frame. I use it for children portraiture (mostly my grandkids) and when I want to take advantage of the DX "crop". IMO the D2Hs, D200 and D700 take very acceptable and nearly comparable images at base ISO and in hazy/filtered natural lighting. The D2Hs did extend my ISO range a bit over the D200, but does not compete in that category with the D300.
The D700 has extended my photography "range" even further with it's high-ISO low-noise performance. The less than 100% VF, while not a big deal for me, can be annoying and I do sometimes miss the crop because of the extra little bit that appears on the image. I can see the image quality difference(mostly in the form of dynamic range) and so can people who routinely view my images. For me the working layout of controls and ergonomics isn't that much different than the D2Hs/F6 and it's what I would (and did) expect from Nikon in that price range.
I'm still tweaking, but I have yet to fully replicate straight-from-the camera files like I came to enjoy with the D2Hs. I'm very close on that note. While I find shooting almost exclusively RAW, I occasionally want to switch to jpg and I find highlight control troublesome on the D700. Regardless of camera I do a lot of post processing in either LR3 or CS5.
The D700 is the best photographic tool I've had, but I'm still post processing. I typically find that when I decide to extend my photographic horizons, especially with a new "technique" that there is still a learning curve. Along that curve there are "bad" pics.
I would never recommend the D700 to someone solely on the basis that it can't take a bad picture. It's far too heavy of a camera to be clubbed with.
It's a great tool, but I guarantee you that there is no universal setting that allows perfect pics in my hands.