I haven't seen any solid information that something like a 24MP D700x/D800 is coming out. Only speculation.

I waited. And waited. Annnddd waited. After 9 months of no response from Nikon about a 20MP+ mid-level camera I dumped my D300, lenses, etc for a 5DMII. No regrets.

Nikon dropped the ball. The 5DMII has been out for a year, is still selling at full price, and is still in short supply sometimes. I wonder how may other Nikon people have jumped ship because they got tired of waiting.   

Regarding D3 vs D700 I think a D700 would be more than enough for stock. Unless you're shooting speeding cheetahs and fighter jets. But you now have several options from Canon and Sony that give you over 21MP for around the same price as a D700. Why bother?

Nikon Rumors said the D700 is being discontinued.  Anyhow, they say it is discontinued at Best Buy.  They are also saying that a D3s is coming out in November, a D3 with video.  Nikon Rumors is - well - rumors, but usually they prove true.

i read somewhere that it doesn't have the same 'face recognition' feature of nikon. so, trying to get that kid running around in focus may not be possible.

Nikon Rumors said the D700 is being discontinued.  Anyhow, they say it is discontinued at Best Buy.  They are also saying that a D3s is coming out in November, a D3 with video.  Nikon Rumors is - well - rumors, but usually they prove true.

Most of the rumors are pointing to a D700s not x as the D700 replacement. So, a 12MP D700 with new stuff like video and articulating LCD. If this is true I don't think it will be around long because they won't sell many.

I don't think Nikon wants to make a D700X. It would devalue their entire pro line. They started offering pro features (51pt 3D focusing, metering, etc) in cheaper cameras like a D300. Now they're having a hard time convincing people that the D3X 24MP sensor and rugged body is worth $5,000 more. If they make a 24MP D700X for $2K-$3K will a D3X be worth $7K?

i read somewhere that it doesn't have the same 'face recognition' feature of nikon. so, trying to get that kid running around in focus may not be possible.

It's possible. It's just not fool-proof like Nikon system.

I have a 5d MkII and I love it. The 21 MP are great, the low noise is great and of course Canon has an advantage in fast primes. A friend of mine bought the Nikon D700 and I tried it out a bit. I actually really like it. It is a great camera. The autofocus is awesome. It is so so much better then the one on my 5d. The autofocus is by far the biggest disadvantage Canon has. After I had the D700 in my hands the autofocus of my 5d felt like one of a cheap camera. Autofocus really seems to be a main issue for Canon. That is also what the guy in the shop told me where I went yesterday. Canon does not seem to be able to fix the issues they have with the cameras 

I have a 5d MkII and I love it. The 21 MP are great, the low noise is great and of course Canon has an advantage in fast primes. A friend of mine bought the Nikon D700 and I tried it out a bit. I actually really like it. It is a great camera. The autofocus is awesome. It is so so much better then the one on my 5d. The autofocus is by far the biggest disadvantage Canon has. After I had the D700 in my hands the autofocus of my 5d felt like one of a cheap camera. Autofocus really seems to be a main issue for Canon. That is also what the guy in the shop told me where I went yesterday. Canon does not seem to be able to fix the issues they have with the cameras 

Auto focus (in my case) is very important
Thank you

kone

as for the canon 5d markII, are the pixels really sharp and noise free even at 100% at full 21mp? at what iso or low light conditions do the pixels start to degrade?

There are a lot of variables so this is kind of difficult to give one answer. The out-of-camera JPEGs are pretty noise-free but also aren't super sharp even with a sharp lens.

You get to see exactly what "sharp" means when you process a CR2 Raw file. The CR2's are unbelievable with the amount of detail and sharpness they produce. Raw images are pretty noise free except for high contrast situations like blue skies where a little noise shows up but it's still pretty minor.

Pixels start degrading at every ISO stop up but 1600 is still decent. 3200 is usable with the right lighting and maybe some downsizing. Above that I don't think it would get accepted anywhere.

With my D300 I rarely went above ISO200 and stuck mainly with the fake ISO100 because it seemed to have less noise and shadow problems.

I frequently use both Nikon and Canon systems and am neutral. FWIW the Nikon gear feels much more solid and in general I am aware of significantly fewer manufacturing quality control issues on the Nikon side. That said, the original Canon 5D was a fantastic breakthrough camera with relatively few issues. Still is. Canon also make several very good lenses.

Even for fairly important annual reports I would general be sending the designers roughly 6 MP tifs normally downsized from RAW files. In the 35 mm format the pixel resolution race is becoming somewhat pointless. Especially given that images are going to increasingly be used mostly online as the use of print declines.

Nikon and Canon are both great. Even the cheapest dslr from either of them is already a great camera. It would be fantastic to see them coming up with some interesting niche models. 2x35 mm panoramic camera would get my vote.

Nikon Rumors said the D700 is being discontinued.  Anyhow, they say it is discontinued at Best Buy.  They are also saying that a D3s is coming out in November, a D3 with video.  Nikon Rumors is - well - rumors, but usually they prove true.

I should wait few months

Kone