Breaking: I have pictures of the Nikon D800

“you should downsample D800 or upsample D700″

That’s my point. Upressing the D3 files produces images surprisingly close to the sharpness of the D3x. Really fine detail is lost, but overall the 12mp images hold up really REALLY well, and there are some serious advantages to the smaller files.

“Organic quality, well such thing doesnt really exist, Ron.”

It does exist, whether or not you can personally see these cues. Granted, it’s exhibited through technical differences in things like noise handling, aberration, color fidelity, shoulder/toe response, skin tones, and more — but there is definitely a dramatic difference between the early, very digital-looking DSLRs and film.

These differences aren’t completely negated, even in today’s cameras. Some are better at producing the natural “film” look than others — namely Nikon cameras tend to have this more natural look/feel in the images. The Kodak 760 was also ahead of its time. Canon tends to be more heavy handed in luminance noise reduction — this is one of the primary trademarks that give away Canon images. Another is skin tones.

“Noise is noise, Ron.”

I can only conclude that you are not capable of recognizing the nuances that differentiate the images from different camera makers. Noise is certainly not just noise, as you claim. Look at Nikon vs. Canon to see the differences. Nor is color, aberrations, or the rest. Nikon employed microlenses in their FX sensor to combat the very serious problems of vignetting and diffraction aberration that were clearly apparent in Canon’s full frame cameras to that point.

In addition, Canons, at least of past, have exhibited significant noise at even the base ISO in the mid and dark tones. There is even banding present. I have seen this phenomenon exhibit itself across various bodies both pro and prosumer. Canon has historically been VERY heavy-handed in their luminance NR at higher ISOs, and the result is loss of fine detail. It is common knowledge that Canon attacks luminance noise, and Nikon focuses on chroma noise.

“12mp upresed to 24mp will look like crap compared to native 24″

Your conclusions are flawed. Upres those web-optimized 12mp D3 JPEGs for yourself and compare them to the 24mp D3x images. They are very close in sharpness, enough to make most people question the value of spending almost 3x more of their cash for what amounts to a modest increase in resolving power. A small amount of fine detail is lost, but the differences aren’t nearly what one would expect, and certainly not what you’re claiming. Most people fail to recognize that there are only 30% more horizontal pixels in the D3x file vs the D700/D3/D3s file. This isn’t a massively higher res camera.

The D3x is the best high-resolution camera on the market. However, there is a price to pay for each of those amazingly clean 24 million pixels, and to the higher 98% of photographers, it isn’t a necessary or cost-effective gain.