>It's overly simplistic, but the D800 essentially took the >pixels and processing of the D7000 and expanded coverage to an >FX sensor. The D7000 is probably more demanding on technique >than almost any camera previously released by Nikon. It also >has had lots of complaints about softness - largely technique >related - so there is some merit in the issues around higher >resolution. Based on that experience, the D800 will probably >have some softness complaints but they will be mitigated by >the hands of skilled users who have been "warned".
What continues to amaze me, is the Canon T2i and 60D, and 7D, and a myriad of other Canon cameras have been at 16-18MP for far longer than Nikon and I have not heard one BIT of this hand-wringing or anything else from that user community. When I bought the T2i and took it shooting, I never ONCE thought about it's 18.2 megapixels. I mounted glass from my non-AI 50mm Nikon, to modern L lenses on it, and just had a blast and got great images.
When I got the D7000, it represented a step backwards in resolution for me, and it never bothered me in the least. The metering was more accurate than the T2i and I was getting great images.
This all just seems to be a whole lot of nothing to me. Doesn't matter if the camera is 2 megapixels or 100. If you know how to shoot, you do. If you don't you don't.