>I suspect the D800/800E may be more than many buyers >anticipated and they will be unable or unwilling to do >everything that is required to use it satisfactorily. > >I reached those conclusions after reading the Nikon Technical >Guide several times, very carefully. I believe Nikon means >what it says in this precisely phrased guide.
Wise words I think. The sage advice to read the manual was offered to all those who thought they'd found AF problems with their D7000 bodies too. I admit that I needed almost three full months to improve my own handholding technique with the D7000.
Although I'd jump on a true D700 successor, the D800 (and all its HD video power which is lost on me) is still next on my list. I don't plan on handholding it at full res mind you. I'll keep full res for serious landscape and studio/still life shooting off a very solid tripod/head combo (with sandbags for anchoring weight too, etc., etc.). Running the D800 at one of its medium resolutions instead, handheld, will still net me the very latest programming, the very latest EXPEED iteration, greater dynamic range, FX/bright/bigger viewfinder and still more res than my D7000 - all serving my primary handheld, street shooting interest.
What I'm suggesting is that the D800, with all its intermediate-but-still-very-high-res selection options, is definitely the most versatile pro Nikon body ever released.
There's a perception out there - which I suffer from too I hasten to add - that because a device has certain features, those features must be usable at all times under all circumstances. While it's obvious that the D800's remarkable 36mp resolution is front & center in Nikon's marketing and at the top of the discussions in every forum I've read so far, I can't succumb to artifical urges imposed by such product marketing pressure when making decisions about which res to use. The fact remains too, I think, that all those res selection options are built into the D800 for very definite reasons which include appropriate choices for various subjects, situations, lighting, speed requirements, etc., etc. I'm saying that the variety of res selection options are far more important, in this particular body, that the touted top resolution itself.
To me, 36mp is a lot like having a top ISO of 102,000 (or Canon's top ISO of 205K). It's all technically quite interesting, but at the same time edge-of-the-envelope stuff that is usable/useful only under very specific conditions. At 36mp we're restricted to camera use on a good tripod/head combo, good lighting and several other shooting requirements. Similarly, in pitch darkness shooting at ISO 12,800 or higher, the fact that the camera will even achieve focus is most often likely to be far more remarkable than the resulting noisy photo.