samualson: Great job DP review, it's mind boggling that camera diehard's will resort to these battles to the death if their favorite is not on the list. Get over it, it's DP reviews opinion, your opinions may differ(ya think) .
It's all subjective and opinions vary, going ballistic because a camera review site classified a particular camera as being a compact is ridiculous.
For all we know the review teams could of consisted of ex NFL football players and to them every camera is compact.
I think it would be a safer bet to try to grab the last pastry at an all you can eat luncheon hosted by Rosie O, Donnell than to disagree with a review teams camera choices.
This is a forum for readers to express their views, so I think it's okay to comment about other cameras. And it's probably what dpreview intends; they can't review all the cameras that are out there, after all.
luben solev: As a Canon user I'm excited by the introduction of the D800. I've been waiting for a while for Canon to release a decent follow-up to the 5DII which I own, but with no competition in the market place, they have not bothered.
The introduction of the D800 should force Canon's hand into releasing a 5DIII. Hopefully it will have much better focusing, as that my number one grumble when using my 5DII for weddings (and chasing after my 2 year old :-)
My 2 pence
FYI... Lots of pros use the 5D.
Serych: Megapixels, megapixels, megapixels :-((( I am waiting for this camera from the moment D3S apeared and there was hope, that Nikon shall upgrade also D700 to D700S (with video capabilities). I was waiting because of fantastic ISO range of D3S. Even D800 has nice ISO range, but I am afraid of much worse noise parameters with 36MP sensor. It's a pity, that Nikon doesn't plan to produce two variants, something like D800X and D800S.
I share your concern about noise. This article (and many others) says the pixel size will be equivalent to that of the D7000. I have the D7000 and the D3, and the noise from the D7000 is noticeable in comparison.
spoorthy: wouldnt removing a AA filter make a camera cheaper? did they just put the extra price because they could or cause it actually is more expensive
The article explains that the AA filter isn't really removed. It's replaced with two different optical elements. There's an element that "splits" the light rays and another element that cancels that split and 'realigns' the light rays. The 'realignment' of the light rays would be more complicated in production (ie, requiring more precise alignment of the optical components) and I would think that's the reason for the extra cost. It's described on p. 3 of the article, and the author even commented that Nikon's use of the term AA "cancellation" was curious.