>Not waiting for a "fix" for moire. The term that >was used was "issue". And it remains so. >It does appear that general opinion leans toward it not being >a problem and goes on to develop a sub argument that there is >not enough difference in sharpness to warrant a purchase of >the E over the base 800. It is hard to remember the last time >a Nikon body has generated so much discussion. If the need to >read the word "fix" in place of "issue" >exists, feel free to do that for the focus problem. That >needs a "fix." The portion of your comment that >caught my attention was that about having moire in your 800. I >have generally not heard that mentioned. In the final >analysis, I think that technology has brought us to the point >that we can identify problems that are not really problems in >the real world. "I have generally not heard that mentioned. In the final analysis, I think that technology has brought us to the point that we can identify problems that are not really problems in the real world."
Oh so true!. My D800 had the Lt A/f issue but was repaired by Nikon succesfully. Moire was never a problem. I should have been clearer in my statement. Personally I'm not sure if moire is even an issue with the E, is it not to be expected with a camera that does not have a AA filter? And you're right, then theres the argument if you go with the E is it that much sharper? They say with proper post sharpening the 800 is as sharp as the E, but you can sharpen the E as well. I do know if you take advantage of the 800's video, the E is then not a consideration . That being said I do miss my 800 in the studio. I did not give the 800 a fair try out as I went to the comfort of the D3S, what I knew best and what felt more comfy in my hands. I especially miss ISO 100 in the studio. ISO 100 is a cleaner file by the Nth degree and allows easier strobe use when approaching the lowest settings. I will be getting another D800.