My two Nikon bodies both died within a two months period, and both suffered from shutter failure. The D2H probably had about 50-60K on it, and the D200 about 50K. So well within their supposed shutter life. After checking with Nikon, since both are out of warranty, both will cost about $300 to fix. I don't think they are worth the bother.

I have bunch of decent Nikon glass, so I have to stick with Nikon bodies for now. I don't want a D2H size body, it was far too bulky for traveling. I also don't see the advantage of spend a bunch of money on D300s when I can get most of the D200 capabilities on a D90. Besides, if I am going to spend D300s kind of money, I would simply go for the D700.

I have probably too many DX lenses, and it is making my decision to go one way or another kind of difficult. I know I would be happy with the D700, but I have some gaps in my lens line-up. With a D90, it is going to be OK with what I have already. I do most of my picture taking while traveling, and I travel about half of the time for business all over the world. I prefer to have better high ISO capabilities, thus the appeal of a D700.

Here are the lenses I have, perhaps you guys can help me out.

10.5mm fisheye, Sigma 10-20mm, Sigma 30mm f1.4, Nikon 17-55 f2.8, Nikon 70-200 f2.8, Nikon AIS 50 f1.2, Nikon 50 f1.8, Nikon 85 f1.4, Nikon 105 f2.8 VR macro, Nikon 28 f2.8.

As you can see, I have 4 DX lenses that would lose their appeal when switched over to D700. That said, I found that I hardly ever use the fisheye, 10-20mm Sigma. My most used lenses are actually 17-55 f2.8 and 30mm f1.4. Those two along with my dead D200 along with a Canon G9 was my travel kit. The G9 will probably get replaced with a Canon S90 or Panasonic GF1 with 20mm f1.7.

So what do you think?
--
I have more gear than talent