To amplify that point a bit more. The problem was not discovered until about 40,000 were already in the hands of photographers, 6 weeks after general release and some time after thousands were in the hands of NPS members. It might have been present and not noticed because it took a specific test condition to see it initially. It required fast wide primes, for example the 24 1.4 wide open. Thousands of people tested, some effectively, most not, which was probably a first for any model. So it is hard to tell whether it was unusual or typical since scans of FPs on large number of files over a wide range of cameras shows that few shots are taken with wide open fast primes using the far left FP. I scanned a large number of my files and found only a couple but many using the right hand FP since portraits are often shot with the FP on the left side of the frame(top on vertical orientation) at the Rule of 3rds lines. Mine did not have the problem but it is likely I never would have seen it if it did. Nor would many people who shoot with fast wide primes. Add the number of people who confused field curvature and distortion for the searched for problem, and those who used ambiguous testing procedures and the problem is really less of a problem than a scan of the internet outrage might suggest. I, personally, have not seen it on any camera owned by the dozen or so D800 owners I know. I have also not seen the green tint complaint, I old see the best color, particularly skin tones than any Nikon I have seen. Will the D600 have a similar problem? Who knows but it mostly depends on the testing done and how hard someone is looking for problems, most people do find problems they search for hard enough, even if no one else with more careful relevant procedures can't reproduce it.
I remember a couple decades ago a manufacture of hi-end hi-fi gear asked me to do a study on their flagship product which was selling modestly at introduction but one reviewer claimed it had a particularly audible distortion that did not show up in lab tests. Suddenly there was a firestorm of complaints about the defective unit that sounded so bad. I did a pretty complete lab test, found nothing unusual and set up some double blind listening tests and again nothing was reported. Finally, I set up a test where the circuit was exposed, and invited the reviewer to listen and give advice as to the sound of several mods I proposed. He was flattered that his ears would determine the mods that buyers would get. During the audition of the various "mods", mostly simple value changes, he could see me making the changes with clip in components. He was sure that the un-modded unit was bad but each added part got better and better until he pronounced it as the best amp he had heard in years. He wrote up a report in a famous hi-end fan magazine and said new units were superior to anything he had heard and praised the company for being so customer oriented. Sales took off and it became a very popular $5400/ channel amp. I never revealed to him that I pulled a trick that I had used many times in testing audio gear for studios, the changes made and visible to him were to a dead unit, the signal only passed through a stock amp under the table. The power of suggestion is very very significant in subjective evaluations of almost any sense from sound to light. I am positive tht some of the complaints about the D800 fell into this range of suggestion by internet noise and intentional misinformation by commercial interests who had millions of dollars at stake provided the new super camera could be tarnished. It happens in every product or issue on the internet now. Old style advertising agencies are losing out as many industries are finding direct internet perception manipulation if more effective than conventional advertising. Stan St Petersburg Russia