I find the marketing process itself to be kinda interesting, so I started this thread. No technical discussions in here except when they relate to a point you're making. Shun and I had a brief dialogue in another thread about the release of the D700 and how it may or may not steal sales from the D300 and/or D3. That is one of my areas of thought. Is the market really moving along that quickly now? 8-9 months from first-ever FX body to first pro-sumer FX body? It seems Nikon is almost releasing too fast, and they could "get more" out of the D3 and D300. Another thing I'm thinking about is how many "haven't made the switch to digital yet" photographers the D700 will convert. Do you think there's a lot of film Nikon shooters out there who have been standing by for full frame? And is the D700 the one to bring them out, or will it be a slightly cheaper version coming down the road? (cheaper because of technology more than anything) From a marketing standpoint it will be interesting to see how Canon responds. All I've ever heard mention is a 5D Mk II, but perhaps Canon has a better built 40D-type full frame body up it's sleeve. Maybe Nikon's spies found out! Intrigue and high tech in the Land of the Rising Sun.... And crikey....release some Nikkors already. And not limited-market perspective lenses. I've heard people ask 80- 400 AF-S, 70-200 2.8 VR-II, 70-200 f/4, AF-S primes. Nikon's turning into a camera body company, not the optics king we know and love! But back to marketing (although it's not D700, per se): Is there really no demand for these lenses we hear people dream of and ask for? Just some things to think about. An FX sensor really doesn't tempt me at the time, but I still find it all interesting. Would be neat to shoot my old AI/AIS glass on FX, but not $3000 neat.