Nikon's SLR's don't make any sense to me in that the incremental improvements between high and low end models seems too small. For example: D5000 12MP, DX sensor, video capability, plastic body, 4fps D90 12MP, DX sensor, video capability, plastic body, 4.5fps D300 12MP, DX sensor, no video, alloy body, 6fps D300S 12MP, DX sensor, video capability, alloy body, 7fps D700 12MP, full frame sensor, no video, alloy body, 7fps I know there are other differences between these five bodies in terms of ISO performance, autofocus points, viewfinders, and such. But as a shooter and someone how has sold cameras I can't get my head around having four cameras that are so similar. I can distinguish the D300 and up from the D5000, but I can't distinguish the D90 from the D5000 and I can't distinguish the D300/D300S from the D90 (in that there doesn't appear to be THAT much of a difference to make sense of having four cameras with such similar capabilities) I suppose the trouble I'm having with it is that the camera specs overlap too much for my brain to categorize them clearly. Compare that to Canon which has three clearly defined categories Rebel: compact, plastic body, relatively slow framerate, inexpensive, cropped sensor 40D, 50D, ect: alloy body, faster frame rate, cropped sensor, higher resolution than their Rebel counterparts 5D/1Ds: Full frame, highest resolution (and then the 1D has the insane framrate and built in grip though generally lower resolution and cropped sensors) I can clearly place each Canon SLR into one of these tiers (Beginner, intermediate, and pro) because each line differs enough from the other. I can't separate Nikon into those clearly defined categories. It just seems that there are too many cameras with too many similarities. *shrugs* That being said, the D700 is a sexy beast. I'll tip my hat to Nikon there. I'm a Canon shooter and I salivate over that thing.