Right - I'm sure if he types in "canon problems" into his favorite search engine there's bound to be plenty of people griping about one thing or another.

That said, I don't think Nikon is doing itself any favors by basically ignoring what looks like actual QC problems with early D800 left focus and the D600 oil/dust problems on the sensor. Hopefully they have it sorted out, but it sure caused a lot of internet banter in the mean time. My guess is that's what the OP is referring to.

P.S. I'm a Nikon shooter in the digital age, but my loyalty does not go back as far as a lot of you. Started with Pentax and shot mostly Contax/Zeiss during the film years.

Looks like Igor from Young Frankenstein ("fronk-un-STEEN"), but I'd be cheating if I looked up the actor, can't think of the name right now. Abby Normal, perhaps.

Quite the grand prize, too bad I lost. Maybe I can get a 70-200 f/2.8 consolation gift.

Hey, I don't remember signing a model release!

:-D

More like the "12 stop" program... ;)

I feel the OP's pain, er, joy. I already had a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 (comparable to the 17-55, IMHO), but just had to get the 16-85mm for a walk-around lens. The wife and I went hiking in Sedona last weekend, and I practically drove myself nuts trying to pick which lenses to bring...17-50, 16-85, 10-20... She just ignores me and offers no help whatsoever, except to keep the phone number of the psych ward close by. So I brought all three, but then wished I had brought a telephoto for a couple of shots.

Thanks for the extra info. I've looked a little at the Canoscan 9000F and the Epson V500 as reasonably priced options. Seems like anything better is much more expensive. I have read that getting the film focused correctly can be a pain, but it sounds like you didn't run into much trouble.

Very nice! Would you please provide some info about your scanner and your scanning process? I'm considering doing something similar, so I'm looking for recommendations. I've heard it can be very tedious to get good scans.

My dog is more interested in bacon than my photos. Photos of bacon don't interest him either.

I had a D300 for a couple years, really enjoyed it. Keep us posted on your replacement choices.

You're right, definitely interesting to ponder. I know I would be quite happy with your D800 (well, one just like it - I don't want to take yours :) ) or the D800E, but I don't see that happening for me. The wife would probably leave me after I had to revamp my entire lens collection. I'm anxious to see what people think about the D7100 without the AA filter, that could be a viable option for me.

Yes, I understand all that. The two cameras essentially arrive at the same end result but have different ways of getting there. My intended point (and question to Marty) was since that neither camera has any "functional" low pass filter, both should be - in some instances - susceptible to moire effects. However, he was only worried about it on the D800E, not the D7100. It made me wonder if he noticed the D7100 does not have an AA filter.

I'm curious why the lack of an AA filter in the D7100 doesn't seem to worry you about moire, but the D800E does?

And my tongue-in-cheek comment is that I'm surprised no one has chimed in yet to say "...if only you would have invested in a better tripod...". Seriously, though, I'm sorry to hear about your equipment, that is a real bummer.

I suspect we are oversimplifying a pretty complex topic, but posted my response because I find the subject intruiging. I wasn't talking about lens sharpness/resolution, but sensor resolution. Moire patterns tend to appear when the sampling rate (aka pixel density) is about the same as the frequency of the details being recorded (aka image detail). That leaves lots of variability, including megapixels, pixel size, pixel density, subject, and subject distance. It seems that camera manufacturers are only recently putting weaker anti-aliasing filters on their cameras (or removing them entirely), just as the MP of sensors go up. I assume (yes, I know, Ass u me!) that's because they can finally get away from AA filters because of the higher resolution sensors. At least that's what the math would predict regarding the Nyquist frequency.

Curiously, I've seen examples that show moire after the file resolution is decreased, which is the opposite of your experience. I bet the results would be different depending if you started with a high MP image and reduced it, or used a lower resolution camera to capture the original image and left it full size.

Anyway, feel free to chime in, anyone. Or I'll just shut up and stop hi-jacking this thread :)

Just the opposite. Higher resolution tends to tame/avoid moire.

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/digitalimaging/processing/samplefrequency/index.html

I highly recommend the video from luminous-landscape.com for about $60.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/videos/lr4_combo.shtml

Very thorough, easy to watch, and the guys really know their stuff. (If you google Jeff Schewe, you'll find that he works with the Adobe software developers and has lots of inside knowledge. Some of the features in LR and Photoshop come from his input.)

I do agree with sodapop's comment that books are easier to reference when you're trying to find a specific tool.

I think the 1.3 crop in-camera allows a higher burst rate (7fps is what I understand). I assume that means the new buffer capacity might still be a limitation, just as on the D7000.

Thanks for clarifying. I've been using LR for about a year, but have been lazy about creating keywords. [Yes, I know it's definitely easier to do it during import than after the fact, but I didn't know any better until fairly recently.] I do try to create a folder structure that makes it very easy to find my images, so it hasn't been a big deal yet. After I shoot 10,000 more images it might get a little unwieldy unless I start tagging things.