I would be more than happy with 16MP again but improvements made in other areas (FF !). The D700 has shown that you don't need to have umpteen MP to make a superb camera.
People keep saying that storage is cheap and that powerful computers are also cost effective .. but as a D800 user pointed out, his out of camera 30-50+MB shots turn into 100-150MB once processed in PS. I don't want to have to buy a more powerful computer and tons of storage, I am more than happy with my iMac and 2 x 1TB off computer storage disks, do I really need to go and triple that power (Aperture/LR3 don't exactly scream on my current 8GB memory iMac) just to stay where I'm at in processing power / speed ? I don't think so.
I am really interested in seeing what the D600 will have in terms of functions, AF and MP. The proven Sony sensor allied to Nikons' AF and flash system in a FF package will be very enticing even without all the bells and whistles of the D800. The K3 (if it stays as APS-C) and maybe another FF camera upstream, need to deliver the (even better) goods just as the K30 has done. Come on Pentax, don't send me to a D700/D600.
Last edited by Frogfish; 06-06-2012 at 05:52 AM.