I know this is a silly question (which I'm the only one who has the answer to) but I really wouldn't mind someone's opinion. I was pretty content with my D200 and was not considering upgrading to full frame. Then I got a chance to (or made a mistake of) shooting with a D3. At 3200 ISO, the colours and the low noise pretty much blew me away. I love the way that the D3 renders blues in photos. I do love my D200, but I find that you really have to do a lot of work in photoshop for the colours to come out right. Since the D3 is waay out of my price range, I started to look at the D700 with new interest. $3K is still a huge chunk of dough, but it is a hell of a lot cheaper than the D3. I was thinking of going somewhere in the middle and buying the D300. It certainly has better colour rendition than the D200, and is decent at ISO 400+. However, I'm a little sick of this camera-buying merry go round and would like a camera that will at least last me a couple of years. I'm worried that I might not be satisfied with the D300. Also, if I bought the D700, I wouldn't have to buy a whole new set of lenses; I anticipated Nikon's move to FX and stayed away from DX lenses (except for a 10-20 Sigma). I have a pretty good set of lenses right now. I guess what I'm trying to find out is whether or not someone (an amateur like me) has compared the images from a D300 v.s. D700 (or D3), and is the extra $1500 really worth it? (Noise at 800+ISO, handling). Thanks, and sorry about the length.