I think it's as they're still hard to get hold of, so there's just not the numbers. (fellow d800 owner, also disappointed at lack of threads )
Don't know if this is still available but it seems a ridiculously low price.?
http://www.wightbay.com/cameras-tv-dvd-electricals/nikon-d800-363-mp-digital/4548332
I picked mine up recently and had been looking all weekend for the thread????
I need to share my excitement.....:bonk:
What is there to say about it that you haven't already read in a million reviews already?
Yes the resolution / cropping is insane (my test shot no. 1 had a reflection of me in my dogs eye...!)
Just like the d700 to use except with some slight improvements
You wouldn't want to shoot sport with it
It does video (shot my first ever time lapse today - in camera, perfect)
High iso is fine (d700 level ie 6400)
If you pixel peep (at 36mpix...) use a tripod but if you don't hand held is fine!
...but you knew all that already...
It's not so mind blowing that it makes the d700 redundant by any means, it's just a nice side-grade that adds video and high resolution. I'm using both simultaneously at present (save lens changes) and unless you heavily crop, at web resolutions its not generally obvious which is which...
P.s. I got mine 2 days after ordering when amazon got a bunch in stock the other week. Sorry about that...
What is there to say about it that you haven't already read in a million reviews already?
Non-hype, non-commercial, hands-on user experience ... oh and a few photos :shrug:
Holy cow Sharp.
If you're a wedding photographer or photojournalist with a 5 year old pc avoid it
Wow, id have let you have mine for £100 less£850 for a mint second hand 16-35f4 was worth it but it means i wont get a full set of lenses this year.
The file size was absolutely crippling - approx 70mb per photo. This slowed down post-processing down terribly.
If it's lossless, why would you choose the 70mb non compressed files?
Could it be that they are faster to work with since they don't need to be uncompressed first.
Would like to hear someone expert in this comment since I take it that "lossless" refers to image quality. In which case the IQ should be the same.
If it's lossless, why would you choose the 70mb non compressed files?