>It might be better to say the the D800 does not cater for the >user requirements that the D700 satisfied, and thus D700 >owners who value its particular combination of abilities do >not have an obvious upgrade path.
Well, technically, they do. It's just going to cost them more money. For those users, it would be something to see a D700s with the D3s sensor in it and everything else pretty much left alone, or upgraded to the standard of the D3s.
The D700 was really the niche product. And one I think ultimately hurt Nikon in some ways. I can certainly understand why they don't seem to be keen to continue on that path.
If you pretend that the D700 never existed, Nikon's path suddenly becomes a LOT more clear.
1. Pro range is full body sports, small body studio/resolution 2. Everything else is DX. 3. Every camera gets video capability going forward.
This essentially mirrors Canon's position and it's not hard to see why. Nikon is a company reeling from being trounced in the DSLR video market, beaten for years in the landscape and portrait market, and had it's manufacturing facilities essentially leveled. Streamlining their offerings for the foreseeable future seems to make smart business sense, and honestly, it should be evident to Nikon loyalists why this is necessary.
It's probably easier for me than most to make these comments about the D700 because I have no vested interest in it. It was never a camera I was going to buy. I hate small body cameras. I'd like my D3s to be larger. I'd like it to hold two batteries. But I'm one out of 100,000 probably. Right now, I am going to buy a D800 with the knowledge I will ditch it the day they put that sensor in a D4 sized body. But it's not available now. So I'll just have to make do with what's on offer.
For those shooting a D700, I truly don't understand the anger. If the camera is meeting the need, why the desire to move away? And if it's not meeting the need, why own it?