In reviewing specs for the D800 and D3x I notice that both sensors are high mp and only rated to 1600 IS0 in their native ISO range. (The Brazilian website says native ISO from 100 to 6,4000 which matches the D7000 range making the D800 sensor basically about a two times larger D7000 sensor.) I suggest the D800 was not intended to be a "lighter" version of the D4 as the D700 was intended to be a lighter (both weight and cost) version of the D3. I suggest Nikon's design philosophy has changed and it is more accurate to think of the D800 as a "lighter" and less costly and even higher resolution (especially the D800E) version of (or replacement for) the D3x. After the D800 is available, why buy a D3x? Do studio and landscape photographers need the ruggedness of the D3 body? I doubt it. While there will be a lot of discussion of why the D800 is better than the D700 I think it could also be argued that the D800 is better than the D3x at about half the cost. One would think the D800 would kill D3x sales.
Anyone see a good reason to purchase a D3x rather than a D800?
Is the D800 better than a D3x at half the cost?