One thing that keeps coming to mind as I test the D300 and D3 is this: why are all those people so quick to dump their D2x bodies? At ISO 100 and 200, the D2x/D2xs holds its own. Yes, holds its own against all comers. ISO 400 is quite usable if you know what you're doing. Back in the days of film, we slide film photographers were pretty much restricted to that ISO range. Clean high ISO images are certainly interesting, and the D3 particularly so in that respect, but remember that once you go beyond the base ISO of any camera you start compromising other things, including color saturation, dynamic range, and on the Nikon cameras in JPEG form: detail (due to NR turning on automatically at some ISO value). Right now, D2x and D2xs models seem undervalued on the used market to me. There are lot of people who should be picking them up instead of lusting for a D3, IMHO.
Funny thing is, I know some pros who are still happily using D100's, which went through a similar trend when the D200 came out (so many were dumped on the used market that the price went way down, then popped back up and firmed).
Don't get me wrong, I like the D3 and D300, and they definitely push a number of bars higher than Nikon has gone before. But I have a real reason to be exploring those new cameras. Do you? There's a lot to be gained by staying a generation behind, actually. You'll get the same benefit as everyone else, only about 18-24 months behind them. But you'll also pay half the price or less. That's true whether you're a Nikon or Canon user, actually. While the 1DIII and 1DsIII look to be very nice cameras, there's nothing actually wrong with the 1DIIn and 1DsII (well, okay, their batteries suck, but you can buy a lot of batteries with the difference in price between a new 1DsIII and a used 1DsII.