Thu 09-Feb-12 11:02 AM | edited Thu 09-Feb-12 11:17 AM by briantilley
I, like many others, was underwhelmed and disappointed by the specs of the D800. As a D700 owner, I was hoping/expecting a replacement that exceeded it in ISO low-light performance because that's where the biggest improvement could be made (not that the D700 is lacking in this area, just that in the past 3 years low-light technology has greatly improved). Instead, Nikon goes the other way and triples the pixels. Meh. How many current D700 owners need billboard-sized prints? And at the cost of eating up memory cards, hard drives and clogging the camera's buffer? In some ways it struck me as a cynical move by Nikon, done to humble Canon in the fool's race for more pixels.
At $3,000, the D800 had no immediate appeal to me and left me pretty annoyed at Nikon for the long, slow tease. My other choice, the new $6000 D4--uh, no thank you.
But, yesterday, I saw the Russian post ostensibly showing sample images taken with a D800. The ones at 3200 and 25000 were very impressive, making me think Nikon has indeed tweaked the algorithms to get another stop or three out of the D800. If so, then they've got me interested again.
Still, 36MP is overkill and presents more problems than appeal to me, and I suspect many other D700 owners, too.