>I assume that 5 years ago, wedding photographers were >succesfully shooting weddings and getting paid. I am also >going to assume that many of them were doing so with DSLRs. > >Given that, I would be reasonably certain that the D800 is >going to be superior in every measureable way than a camera of >5 years ago. Thus, it stands to reason that one should be >able to shoot weddings successfully with a D800.
Fair enough if your belief is that the D800 will be a good camera for weddings and I am not/did not saying/say definitively that it won't be; but I respectfully say that I don't think you've provided any reason for why it will be simply by stating that because one camera is 5 years older than another the latter will be inferior in every meaningful measurable way when compared against the former.
I think you might agree that solely measuring "specs" isn't the the final word on whether one camera is better than another for a particular purpose. For example, if the D800's pixel count more readily exposes camera movement -- as one of the beta testers indicated -- for me think that's a meaningful consideration. Low-light considerations are another -- and while we await real world examples, there's no reason to assume that the D800 will be better than the D700 in low-light situations (or, to use your criteria, better at every step up the ISO ladder). By your reasoning, in two more years the D800 of today will have a better low-light capability than today's D3s; for that to be the case, we'd of course now need to see that the D800 is better in low-light than is the D3s. Perhaps you didn't intend such a blanket statement; but if you did, this is why I disagree with it (this is all disagreement with a small D as this is simply a camera discussion forum ).
In any event, my initial post wasn't that one could not shoot a wedding with D800. And my post obviously reflects what I believe (accurate or not) to be one of the more important considerations for a wedding photographer: a camera's low-light ability.