I met one of the engineers at the D800 release and discussed this with him. Having a background in computer processors I was interested in the manufacturing process; the thing that dictates the viability of a chip / sensor is not the design but the ability to manufacture it with a viable yield.

That was then; I do not know what the current manufacturing state is or whether there is any further multi manufacturer collaboration though given the complexity of these things this type of collaboration would be logical.

I think the build quality of the D800 and D700 are identical, so that is not a factor in the comparison. I've had both sitting next to me for the past half hour, and if I reach over and pick one up with my eyes closed, I can't really tell which is which from how they feel. Based on the pictures I've seen of their "skeletons", here is a comparable amount of magnesium alloy, which is how Nikon touts it's build quality.

For those who care about frame rates, the D700 is higher. But your wording of "just about" allows for an exception or two. :-)

Including the D300s was not a "failure". It was included for the reasons I stated, and as a placeholder for the fictional D400, which would at least warrant consideration for the list if it ever saw the light of day. If the option for a "strike-through" mode existed, I wanted to use that, but I couldn't find it.

I did not say the D300s was a failure for being included for the reasons you stated. I said it was a failure for the reasons you said the D700 did not make the list; ie. not as good as the D4 or D800. If the D700 did not make the list for that reason then the D300s should not be on the list (for the same reason) as it is even less of a camera than the D700.
By your own rational... or perhaps more accurately, lack of rational, the D300s should definitely not be on the list and is a failure of your reasoning and logic.

you have a lot of ifs and or buts . but your asking the wrong people . go out and find the pro's and ask them . the pro has no cost point . they just get the best , and why not , if you made your living at it , I would hope you would to
but they don't neceraly take better pictures , they do stand up better , better quality , better material , so most pro just buy the most expensive in the line they buy into , some will use the next step or two lower for a back camera , but asking people here what a pro buys is pointless . as your answers will be what every one wants for them selves .or what erery one else has been reading , or what brand they perceive to be the best . could it be you just want to buy a camera and have no clue what to buy for your self . so your taking a pole .

Actually, many pros have a price point and a reason for what they pick other than it cost the most. In my humble opinion that would be financially irresponsible to just buy the most expensive body and this is why i am asking the question on UHH. As for the people on this forum, I feel this site has some of the most knowledgeable in the business. Just to clarify one point, the only thing that makes a pro a pro is he or she gets paid for what they do. That however does not give them automatic photographic knowledge. That only comes the old fashion way - hard work! Many with amateur status are some of the best photographers but choose not to do it for a living.

I don't know about practice in America, not having worked very much there, but here and in Africa the price point is determined not by the cost of the body but the reliability, durability and competence of the camera to do the job.

To work you have to have the equipment to do the job. That requires the selection of the correct tool. The price of that tool is very much a secondary consideration.

You may also need to look at the definition of a pro photographer. The idea that being a pro is by default being the 'best' is a long, long way from reality. Press photographers, for example, are probably some of the worst in classic terms of composition and technique but they are paid to capture a specific moment at a specific standard not win the Wildlife Photographer of the Year.

Most pro's choose the equipment that will do the job come rain or shine, day in, day out, year on year.

A Nikon D4 to a pro shooting 200000 frames a year is not expensive; a lot less expensive than a less rugged bpointbbich will have had two shutter changes in an equivalent time and probably started to fall apart.

When comparing amateurs and pro's there is a lot of justification in the oft repeated claim that the amateur produces 'as good or better'. The amateur picks up the camera when they want to go shoot. They shoot what they want to shoot. They are not being pressured with lists, deadlines, poor conditions and having to get the job done. I remember being an amateur - and actually enjoying it. This week I get to go photograph armoured vehicles in forecast heavy rain, high wind and poor light for four days for a job. So yes, I would at times rather be an amateur as well!

It is really, really difficult to overthink something more than me, but you might just have done it. :lol:

First, the list was a starting point to get the list to 3, not the final list. Between the D700, D800, and D3s, the D3s was the higher level "contemporary" of the D700, and the D800 is the "newer version" of the D700, so it's close to apples-to-apples to take the D700 off the list. If you have the D700 and want more resolution, get the D800. If you want a faster frame rate, get a D3s. So that's the "reasoning and logic" for why the D700 didn't get considered.

The D300s/"D400" were mentioned because some people really prefer the DX format, and the D300s is supposedly the semi-pro level DX body. Comparing it to the D700 wasn't part of my reasoning and logic, you brought up the comparison first. And while I agree that the D700 is better, it is an apples-to-oranges comparison because of the DX-FX factor. So it was included for different reasons than why the D700 was not included.