Some fine piece of DPReview logic:
"Why is the D810 priced like the D800E, and not the D800? Well, the D810 takes the D800E's 'AA filter cancellation' trick one step further by dispensing with an AA filter entirely, which should result in a camera that offers greater resolution than either of the two models that it replaces. "
So not including two Bayer-AA-filter layers justifies making the camera more expensive?
How stupid do they think people are?
Or am I am the stupid one for missing something?
With the recent "two model" approach to offering both Bayer-AA-filter-less and appropriate anti-aliasing technology choices, it was perhaps defensible to charge more for the model with the lower production run (not sure though, which model, the D800 or the D800E sold better in the end).
But if there is only one model and they are saving production costs, how can that possibly justify a higher price?
N.B., a 36MP Bayer-Array camera without any AA-function is incomplete. It essentially comes with the proviso, "
We trust you cannot take shots that are sharp at the pixel level, so you'll be fine". If a camera, like the K-3, can offer the best of both worlds in one package that's great, but if that technology is not available for Nikon then they should be offering two models.