So it seems to me that the D700 followup (call it the D800) will be 18MP or so, with ISO/noise performance about the level of the D3 and D700, and video similar to or slightly better than the D7000. (I don't have any inside info, I just read NR and elsewhere.)
But I wonder if this is the right thing for Nikon to do. It seems to me there are three camps waiting for the D700 replacement: those who want better ISO/noise performance, those who want more pixels, and those who want video.
ISO people (I'm in this camp) see the great low-light performance of the D3s, and want the same in a smaller, cheaper, less "extreme" camera. They'd be disappointed if the replacement was at the same noise level of the D700 or only slightly better. They want a D700s.
Will resolution people be happy with 18MP? That's only about 20% bigger than 12MP in either direction. I'm sure they've been looking hungrily at the 24MP of the D3x, and would be disappointed with anything that's much less. They want a D700x.
Video people won't be /really/ happy until they can have 1080p at all framerates up to 60Hz, or 4:2:2 4K video if they're really extreme. I think they'll be waiting at least a year for Nikon to make something they're happy with.
So am I right, or am I way off? Who here wants a D700s, who wants a D700x, and who'd prefer the hypothetical/probable(?) D800 above?