The D800 looks very acceptable. It seems to me that the way we view noise on the higher mp cameras has changed a bit because of the depth of resolution. It appears to me that higher mps can help mask some of the noise while maintaing sharpness. I noticed this on my D7000. I always forget in print most noise disappears. Do I have this right? It appears Nikon has a winner in the D800.
I love how people bash the D700 now. When it was released, it was praised for the great ISO performance. As a matter of fact, people no longer appreciate that since something better is on the way.
cipsaz wrote:
I love how people bash the D700 now. When it was released, it was praised for the great ISO performance. As a matter of fact, people no longer appreciate that since something better is on the way.
Bruce Sawle wrote:
Who in this thread is bashing the d700?
I haven't seen anyone bash the D700. Everyone knows how good it is. Some people will appreciate the file size a D800 offers. Plenty of others won't. They should have called the D800 something else so that everyone dissatisfied with the d700 'replacement' wouldn't have got their panties in a bunch.
They ought to just add video to a D700 and sell it for a good bit less. I don't see how anyone could complain then.
worst comparison ever....how do you make one image sharp, and the other you give a crop out of the OOF areas....terrible....wake me when something good shows up...
cheeba wrote:
Is this your first day on the internet?
Ah that's true. Then they'd complain that there wasn't enough of an upgrade in iso performance. They want the D3s sensor in a smaller body for $2k. Hmm, then what would people complain about....the grip prices for the D800....batteries.....xqd cards....
