Although great cameras, I do no see much need to change my Nikon D700 for either the D800 or the the D600. These clearly have two advantages over de D700: resolution and dynamic range at low ISO. Given that low ISO's are very frequently used (by myself, but not only) and that high dynamic capture capability is very desirable, both cameras do ofer an advantage over the D700. The resolution advantages are there too, but it is not everyone's need. Now both new models have in turn disadvantages over the D700: briefly, construction and AF on the D600, and SPEED (and file size) on the D800. There is no camera yet that replaces the last generation's D700. Prosumer body or 4 FPS or huge $6k camera? Perhaps I am very different form everybody else, but I personally do not like the compromises (if if I had to, maybe I would settle with the D800 and sometimes hate the speed and the filesize). In my very personal opinion I would only be tempted to freely change my magnificient D700 for s a "d700s" (or whatever Nikons brilliant naming gurus come up with) that had >5-6 FPS, D-7/800 level body construction, 100% VF, HQ video, wide AF zone (or a little wider, please), AF speed and accuracy from D700 or better, meter from the D700 or better, around 24 MP super high dynamic range sensor, all for $2799-2899. A quieter shutter would be appreciated too and an extra programmable button. I find the D7000, "D400" (DX or how about a large 1.3x DX?), "D700s", D800, D4 route much preferable as the actual D7000, D600, D800, D4 lineup, but that's just me. The D800 should have been the "D700x"... S.