Can't recall my user/pass or what email I used, so had to create a new one.
Definitely looking forward to that review.
I've been waiting for Nikon to bring this baby out (still using a D300) though got to admit I sure wish they reduced the Megapixels for some better higher ISO. I mostly use the camera for concerts, night, long exposures. So you can see why I am upset a tad. I can't afford a D4 so to be honest, in the first time in my life, I'm looking at Canon. All previous lenses are DX, so I'd need to upgrade them as well.
I heard a rumour that there may be a FX/DX model with lower MP than the D800 that will have better higher ISO capabilities later this year. No idea where I heard it, but would love to know if that's true and if I should wait a little longer. I'm guessing it might be a D7100.
I've tried down sampling the sample images and, albeit jpegs, Canon clearly still has the upper hand here
. I've briefly looked at RAW from both and while not the same/similar photos, Nikon seems to have the upper hand here as Canons processing on JPGs is rather aggressive to make them look that good.
Funnily enough I've noticed the Nikon being more 'natural' and Canon the one with more saturation this time. I've always liked Nikon for adding that little touch of saturation. Maybe this is just due to the settings being flat, but interesting to note that they seemed to have swapped.
So what am I to do? wait yet for another model to come out (which may be years) that offers better high ISO, switch to Canon (though I'm sure I'd regret that next time round), or put up with it. as it's obviously still be better than the D300.
I've thought about pre-loved D3s that no doubt will start appearing on eBay etc, but 12.1MP doesn't leave much room to crop if required.