Originally posted by Aristophanes A D700 with 14-24, 24-70, and a long lens with VR plus an SBxxx super-flash is a serious pro kit. Throw in a fast prime or 2, the necessary tripod, and an APS-C D300 you can now do wildlife with mor res. More reach? Get an excellent Nikon TC.
Nikon fully expects its top shooters to own more than one body.
The issue/decision about FF is not really up to Pentax. It will entirely be determined by Canikon and Sony's pricing for their FF systems relative to APS-C. It's possible that Nikon will do what it usually does with its models, and put out a successor to the D700 (D800 likely), but keep manufacturing the D700 selling it at a lower price point (see note about Nikon getting its crowd to buy multiple bodies).
If the D700 falls to a $1,700 street price, every APS-C/M43 flagship within $500 is going to have a serious problem competing. Canon might do the same with its line; use redundant legacy product sales to drive price points lower. Eventually by doing so Canikon will create a much more cost-effective FF ecosystem leading to the FF domination of the $1,500+ market. This will allow Canikon to scale back their APS-C production and lengthen the advances there, allowing them to put even more capital into FF, driving down the costs even further.
It is perfectly, even preferable, for Pentax to follow here. So long as they are ready. I suspect they are. This is a good time to be cautious, but Pentax's moneyed users and pros who stick it out will very soon need to know if they should stay loyal or jump to another brand.
A real pro sport photographer will buy a D3s, not a D700. And in that area, Canon's APSH system is stil widely popular, in part because of that "extra-reach".
I have met several pros in other domains for whom 12Mpx is not enough. If your business is selling prints, the trend is to larger print, where Canon's 5DmkII or Sony's A850/900 have the hedge (not speaking about MF systems)
When speaking about Art photography, you get the full spectrum of equipement used, but as a trend most are still using film. They use from Lomo to LF, using digital APSC is more popular than FF simply because Photography as art doesn't pay much and budgets are tight.
Pros are not an homogenus category and with the print crisis, photojournalism is certainly not a healthy profession. Apart from the very specific professional sport photography, I don't think major camera makers are developping specific products for this category of consumers. Even when releasing the "pro" 645D, Pentax said they were targeting wealthy amateurs. Fact is there are certainly more amateurs who have the money and buy D700 than pros.
I don't consider myself to be rich, but with an engineering degree and a matching job, I make more money than most anymous professional photographers (I'm not speaking about the top tier / celebrities here) Since I have no children, my buying power of equipment is much bigger, even if I don't make a living of it.
What I'm trying to say here, is that there are much more people like me who buy high end lens and DSLR than pros, and that it's that population that camera makers are looking at.
Pros are important yes, because most amateurs are looking at them when buying high end gear. But, the opinion of real pros about camera brands is much more nuanced than amateurs. At least with the ones I could speak to.