El_Pickerel said:
If so many lenses are showing their limits on the D800's pixels....

The answer to that is None. I have 40-50 year old lenses that I have used on my D800 and another 16 that range in price from $150 to $2,000 and 2 to 20 years old. None of them are any worse, or show anything more, than they do with film, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, and yes, even 36mp sensors. Dull lenses are dull, mediocre lenses are mediocre and razor sharp are razor sharp.

Many for some reason have been beating the drum of "outresolve" lenses since 10mp sensors were released and for some reason, have doubled down now - and they will continue to be proven wrong. It reminds me of the "climate change is a hoax" crowd.

WaterEngineer said:
I really don't understand comparing a high density (high pixel count) 35mm DSLR format camera to MF. IMHO that is just wishful thinking. MF is so much more than being able to "print big."

I couldn't agree more. Color depth is another reason MF outshines FX any day. 35mm sensors will have to hit the 16bit color depth before they should be considered contenders with MF.

I'm just waiting for the day people realize a camera, is more than a sensor.

Oh, I agree with you, Tommie. I was referring to the debate on another thread about whether the D800 was a studio camera or not. It's not just a studio camera, but it does a great job as one. As you say, D400 before D4x (and hopefully before D7100).

@ jonnyapple My apologies... but, with a camera with "only" 16 MP which does this

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/8010775815/sizes/o/in/photostream/

I seem to not see the need for more MP in the field. Of course, having said this, I may end up getting a D800 if Nikon does not get busy and announce a D400 before the end of the year.

I cannot imagine the benefit in an overall sense of a D4X. If I am not mistaken the high resolution camera is the D800 and it can work in all areas as has been so ably demonstrated by the posts to PAD. Thus, I would be very very shocked if Nikon were to bring out a D4X, and especially at a time when a lot of us are waiting for the D400. First things first!

If so many lenses are showing their limits on the D800's pixels, how much more advantage will you gain from moving to an even denser sensor? Sure your resolution will still increase with 54mp over 36mp, but you're also showing the imperfections even more clearly. If you really need the pixel density, go for one of the 24mp crop sensors (assuming the D7100, D400, and others will use the sensor of the D3200 or something similar). If you need the pixels, go for the D800 and one of the lenses that will resolve well on the corners of that sensor.

msmoto said:
D800.....for studio,...

Don't let's start that again! ;-)

Gosh, i may be missing the point, but I think the D800 filled the lotsa pixels thing. The DOF and ultimate resolution with the DOF is what MF is about, I think. For all the other Hi ISO, portability, long telephotos, etc. this is the 35mm format's advantage.

And, yes, the cost of medium format is high, so much so that only a very few amateurs can afford to go the route. But, for 95% of all photographs... 35mm will do as well. D800.....for studio, D4 for the paparazzi.

I think you missed the point Water Engineer, I was comparing the cost factor between a Nikon High Megapixel cameras and a Digital MF cameras. It will interesting to see what new technology in sensor development will arrive. If I was a MF manufacture I would be very concerned, When you look at the big names in MF, none of them have the resources compared to Nikon/Canon.
Professional photographers are always looking for that extra edge, and perhaps in the future MF?LF may not be King

I really don't understand comparing a high density (high pixel count) 35mm DSLR format camera to MF. IMHO that is just wishful thinking. MF is so much more than being able to "print big." Also, the pixel resolution of 35mm based DSLRs does not match the quality of MF at the pixel level. Yes, I know what DxO says but go make two prints - big prints - compare them - and then get back to me.

MF is about DOF, the "look", having big files coming from great pixels and not having to increase the dimensions as much to get to a print size as compared to 35mm format.

My frustration is on the other side. Why does MF cost as much as it does" Why is a digital back $20K, why isn't the sync speed and shutter speed higher on MF systems?

Yes, I know there are not as many digital backs made/sold as 35mm based DSLRs but in this age the prices are stupid.

Oh, and in the MF community as reported and commonly quoted on two of that communities forums, 35mm based format will not compete with MF until 35mm format based sensors are at 80Mpix.

Shame about the Hoax , I am sure some D3x owners would love such a camera, needless to say, i am sure the price would be more than stated, but compared to medium format cameras it could stand an increase
Hope somebody at Nikon is watching your Forum