From the reviews it would appear that the long awaited 12MP FF (aka FX) Nikon is superior to the 12MP Canon 5D. But I can literally buy 2 Canon 5D bodies including the touted 24-105 f4.0 Canon lens for the same price as a single D3 body only. According to tests on another site, high ISO noise control in the D3 is a bit better than that of the 5D, but worth the price difference? This is a serious and non-rhetorical question since even owning a lot of Nikon mt. glass I continue to consider switching to Canon.

In addition to my D200, I need/want a FF body that has better low light performance and is more of a field camera than my 14MP Kodak SLRN. I was hoping that the new D3 would meet that need at an affordable price. Given the absurdly high price of the D3, I can probably convert over to Canon and its 5D for the same money as buying the D3.

One other point. While keeping the pixel count relatively low for an FX body gives the D3 better low light/hi ISO performance, its 12MP resolution is a bit low, in pixel density, for an FX size sensor (less than 1/2 the pixel density of the D300). The 12MP D300 with its DX sensor has a much higher pixel density than the D3, which I believe should increase image sharpness noticeably.