I have been a fan of Nikon (over other brands of DSLRs) for basically my entire photo-taking lif.
Recently, however, I am questioning their smarts.
The D700 is the go-to camera for Nikon-using sports and music shooters (at least, for those of us who don't have the dosh for a D3s!) it has amazing low-light capabilities (#1 reason for me)
So when Nikon announced the successor (D800) yesterday, I was excited. It could only get better, right? Was hoping for increased fps, perhaps a nice new (larger) sensor, maybe a very slight jump in megapixel count. No way could they stuff this up.
36 megapixels = too many. A lot of people are under the impression that more megapixels = better photos. *ahem* not quite. Of course, a higher count would allow for printing larger sizes and some serous cropping (if needed) without image degradation. However - there is such a thing as TOO MANY MEGAPIXELS! Gizmodo has a good article written on just that subject.
There are other points also, that make it unsuitable/wasteful for my kind of photography, but they'd be better explained by a more technically proficient person than myself.
Regardless, it's just a waste. For the kind of shooting I do, anyway. Also the video function. I don't see the point in my having to cart around the extra weight and pay the extra $ for the HD video capabilities which I will rarely/never use. I just don't do video.
In my mind, the successor of my faithful D700 is a studio camera. Not one you grab on your way out the door to shoot a live band.
The D4, however (successor to the D3/D3s - my wet dream camera) seems a smart choice. A more expensive choice. Therefore, Nikon is forcing us poor concert photographers to pay the extra if we want to upgrade to a better camera than our D700s (which have been discontinued now)
At just 16.2 megapixels, it's just about perfect. The only thing that would make it better is the option of purchasing one without video capabilities. The other thing that worries me is the battery life... but other have posed the question of whether or not the Nikon press release (probably written in Engrish, as Nikon is a Japanese company) was wrongly quoted. If it wasn't, we're looking at about 40% less shots-per-charge than it's predecessor, the D3.
I now know what the older photogs were talking about when they mentioned Nikon and Canon 'leapfrogging' one another over the generations of DSLRs. This must be Canon's turn to shine.