Originally posted by bossa Many folks in Nikon land have a love/hate relationship with that guy's D800 posts... One the one hand they are nice to have, he did a good job with examples, language, presentation and clarity in the reviews. But he speaks completely from a standpoint of pixel-level sharpness, he hasn't done enough to make that clear, and because of that his posts are being misinterpreted to some degree.
Basically - every one of his lenses resolves more on the D800 than his D3, and the images displayed at the same sizes as before look better (or in some cases, with very slow shutters speeds or high-ISO, the same.) His 'dissatisfaction' comes from viewing at 100%, and a 100% 36MP image shows details magnified quite a bit more than a 100% 12MP shot. So, he sees flaws at 100% that had no detail at all present in the 12MP shot - and he's becoming unsatisfied by that. Folks are interpreting his dissatisfaction as being with the images that are produced, in other words some think the printed or web-displayed image will look worse on the D800 than the D3 or D700 if the lens is sub-par. That's absolutely not the case.
Quote: Finding a decent wide angle that's sharp edge to edge might be impossible.. maybe a Zeiss? I really want to milk the sensor for urban and landscape work.
To
maximize that sensor, you may need to go Zeiss. But to get
more out of it than you ever could with a D3 or D700, you can shoot any lens you would have shot on the D700.
.