>>3056926D700 and D7000 here.
Don't really need an upgrade for the D700, although if I was offered to trade it for a d750 for free, I probably would go for it because of a second card slot, tilty screen, 24MPs. I would Not trade it for a d800/810 because those cameras don't fit my genres too well andd I haven't reached the point in shooting landscapes where I'm limited by the megapickles count and not my personal skills.
I'd rather spend the money on lenses.
I'd love to upgrade my D7000, don't really have the cash for it though. These days I use it primarily for macro, walkabout (cheap 2.8 zooms and wideangles) and wildlife. The prime issue with it is a mushy af, which actually makes me favor using D700 for birding: more reliable, has a better burst and VF. I'd also like better high-iso performance and more megapickles to crop from. Finally, I find the colours the d7k produces compared to the d700 off-putting, there's something wrong about them which makes me edit the photos I took with it more often and to a larger extent. Maybe the newer models are like this too, but they probably aren't worse. Buffer size is a joke too but it's a common thing in this price segment.
Lenses come first though. Some walkabout zoom or a 35mm for the d700, 100mm tokina macro, trade the dx wideangle I own for an fx version. Maybe an 85mm. Then and only then shall I consider upgrading, unless an exceptional offer comes before that which is unlikely.
I do not see D7500 as a direct upgrade to my D7k because despite the price difference it managed to lose some features I actually like about the d7k, making it less trustworthy. I'd rather upgrade to a d7200 instead. The "bald guy" is right, Nikon is probably not. I may be wrong here and it may be better for the company from a financial standpoint, however I believe that our type of consumers does not directly benefit from this camera being released at all.
