Basically I agree with your assessment. Except that for the time beeing I'm using the 1DsIII when high resolution is required. I know it's not on the same level as the 39 mpx MFDB, but it is clearly outresolving the D3. I agree that the D3 is an essential camera due to its excellent allround properties and unique low-light capability. It is a camera that will not become redundant for quite a while IMO.
The more I use the D3, the more I like it. Time and again when I develop an image (in NX) I think, yes that's exactly what it looked like. I only sporadically get that reaction from my Canon files.
HI Arne
I'm very excited about the D3x - granted, it isn't going to be as good as a 39mp back, but I think that Canon have rather been resting on their laurels with respect to high resolution, and the advent of the splendid new Nikkor f2.8 zooms (lets face it, wide angle zooms has never really been Canon's forte) might make for something very special.
I was pretty gobsmacked when I did a comparison between the Zeiss ZF 25mm f2.8 and both the nikkor zooms at 24 - they were much better at all apertures (especially the 14-24).
My landscape work isn't about waiting for 2 hours in the dark for the sunrise with a tripod and a flask of coffee, it's about fleeting glimpses of light, about awkward places and it really isn't suited to MF. I'm hoping that the D3x will get me close.
In the meantime, the D3 actually produces great results:
this was taken from the middle of a gorse bush teetering at the edge of the cliff (apologies to those who've seen it in the leica form)