I do shoot sports and I still don't understand the problem. I shot sports when I could only manage ISO 400 and 1 frame every 3 of 4 seconds. I shoot sports in manual focus. I shoot sports on my D3s, and I shoot sports on my D800. I shoot sports on Nikon, Canon, or whatever camera I can get my hands on.
If the D300/D700 meet your needs, keep them and shoot them. I was in a similar position with the D4. Didn't add anything I needed or wanted so I didn't buy them. The D600 doesn't add anything I need, so I won't buy it. The D400, if it has DX and 7-8 FPS and at least 20MP, I will buy. Maybe buy a pair. I don't care if it's $1800, or $2800.
You stated earlier that you see Nikon falling back into a "Me too" position. Well, I'll counter that with this:
1. The D800 is a market leader. Period. 2. The D4 maintains Nikon's position among sports shooters 3. The Nikon D600 blows away it's competitor 4. The Nikon 1 system has been a revelation and though positioned differently than Canon's offering, I find it much more useful for my meeds.
It may well be that Nikon is abandoning the "wildlife" market because that market is simply not profitable. And from the arguments presented here, I can understand why. In the sports market, it is EASY to get us to upgrade. Give us better ISO or more FPS and better AF, and we drop $5k. In the portrait market, give us better DR, more MP, and better color depth, and we drop $3k. Nikon is likely chasing markets that spend.
>I don't think those that do not shoot wildlife or sports >understand the problem.