Made the leap to D700

[elliot1]

<p>I should add that I as good as the D7000 is, the D3/D700 does have a slight edge in most areas with regard to IQ in my opinion. But the D7000 does narrow the gap quite a bit. And as previously mentioned/ the D3/D700 images do really when up sizing.</p>

[cyrus_procter]

This discussion interests me very much, so I decided to do some reading up on it. I discovered both of out theories are

very flawed, because true resolution relies on so many things, for an example, setup of the de-bayer process, how the

processor comes to super pixels and how many pixels are un-used. We have no way of knowing what de-Bauer process

either camera uses, so our theories such as tripling the pixel count, mutiplying both sides by 2 and/or dividing total pixel

count by their square roots are completely irrelevant because we have no idea how the de-bayer is using those pixels and

how many are being un-used. So it is very possible the D700 has more "true resolution" than the D800, it's just as

possible the D800 has 10 times more "true resolution" than the D700. We have no way of knowing the "true resolution" of

either camera because the data necessary to calculate it is not available. So I shall leave this discussion by simply saying

that, to the OP, the D800 will, based on the photos I've seen from it thus far, have a huge impact on the detail of

large/oversized prints. It is scientifically impossible for us to calculate on paper just how much difference (without have a

very long, detailed, geeky discussion with Nikon's sensor designers), but suffice to say, the D800 will be a very hefty

improvement over its predecessor in large/over-sized prints.