Boy this thread has hit a sweet spot
Like others I waited and waited for the D400 (I had D200) Nikon kept shooting and missing the target- D600-D7000-D800

I finally sprung for the D800

I agree with wasatch if HDR is your goal I think you should keep a constant aperture to keep the DOF constant which keeps the edges more constant
I routinely bracket - not so much for HDR but to maximize the chance of a proper exposure- I use a fixed aperture AND ISO auto (someone asked about that) and the camera picks an ISO and shutter speed- it seems to work well on my bird pics

Responding to Dman who said
"Of course they do. Haven't you ever sharpened an image? Were you able to tell you had sharpened it?

A monitor shows you every single pixel of the first generation version of your image and is therefore far superior to prints, which is a second generation image."

First DPI is not meaningless to digital images it is a approximation of how the printer will display your image
an 8X10 print at 300 DPI (90,000 dots per square inch) will attempt to display each of 7 million camera pixels

A 14 inch computer monitor at 72 DPI will display up to 1 million camera pixels (excuse the rounding off)

If you display your entire 10 MP camera picture on your 14 inch monitor 90 % of the data is ignored /truncated/medianaized and small changes in sharpness will not be detectable when you sharpen - Photoshop even warns you about this if you attempt to do so

Ergo: looking at prints is usually a more accurate way to evaluate picture quality than a unzoomed computer display

Regarding the comment on first /second generation version-- this concept does not apply to digital data as it did to analog/film data-- Nothing is lost by copying /transferring

I have previously posted my experience with D800 and 28-300
It makes a good all purpose carry around combination
It has noticeable distortion and chromic aberration which are mostly correctable in photoshop
If one does very large prints or crops a lot (as I do for birds) the softness definitely shows up wide open at max zoom even in the center , on a body with fewer pixels this would not be as noticeable (you would see the pixels before the softness)
DXO rates the lens at 5 effective Mpix this is enough for many but not all uses
I have bit the bullet and ordered the new 80-400 which is claimed to be much sharper, but now I will have to worry about motion blur

Thanks for all the insights from the group
I suspect the 300 MM 2.8 prime w extender while ideal might be a bit to lug around
Regarding the "rule of thumb" of 500 mm needed for birds, I suspect that this rule dates from a previous era of fewer pixels (or film equivalent parameter) and less sharp lenses
So for my case where I typically crop my pics in computer a lot, the goodness factor ends up being (focal length) X (effective resolution in Mpix) Thanks DXO
So with my D800 I have more pixels than I can use except for the few lenses on Nikons recommended list (prime lenses and the 70-200 F4, but at least the camera will not limit the overall performance
Low light operation is not a critical factor except as it affects shake and noise both of which affect "effective resolution" so ultimately it is a trade off between lugability and available light
In the above "crop factor" in the camera or by the lens is irrelevant except as it affects file size- hard drives arecheap

The new 80-400 G is looking good

I have D800 and Nikon 28-300 G
The camera is way better than the lens for bird pics
Which would be a better upgrade
70/200 F4 with 1.4:1 extender (effectively 280mm) or the new 80/400G

They both have about the same equivalent aperture F 5.6 at max zoom

the 70/200 has a DXO rating of 21Mpix which I suppose would be degraded some by use of the extender

while the 80/400 has a rating of 14Mpix but this spreads its pixels over 1/2 the area field of view of view (280/400 squared) for an apples to apples rating comparison of 28 to 21 pixels per bird of a given size

Lugability/hand holding ability and anti shake capability assumed to be equivilent, but the 80/400 is a bit pricier even with todays rebate

Any thoughts?

Re previous post- Size of the camera pixel has no effect on print quality except possibly as it affects noise, but from reports D800 noise is at least as good as D600 The extra camera pixels are important for bird/wildlife pics as it allows more aggressive cropping

Hi all
I have this combination the D800 w 28/300 zoom
It seems to be a good all around set
However there is no question that most of the time the camera has more resolution than the lens
Nikon published an article 55047 on their UK website that discusses these issues with hi pixel cameras
They also published a list of suggested lenses to use with the D800, 28/300 is not included
The related issue is motion blur which is more noticeable in a hi pixel camera - fortunately the good low light performance allows use of higher ISO settings /faster shutter speed
I do find that the new Sharpen/ "shake reduction" filter in PS CC helps in many shots when lighting is less than ideal
I do a lot of birds and would love to find a good hand holdable non zoom 300 mm or longer lens at a rational price

Attached find a pic of the item
SN is 158037 which puts it early in the production run indicated by previous poster
Not clear re ref to "One ring" vs "two Rings"
Zoom is internal via push pull sllder near the middle, while focus is via the large knurled ring near the front

Close focus is 13 ft which can be improved via the shown front closeup filter

first timer here hope the pic is attached

Nikor Telephoto zoom 8.5 -25 cm

(Download)

I have one of these -- The very first full frame 35 mm telephoto zoom lens (if you exclude a Voightlander product of the same era that was never made in quantity) circa mid 1970's

Based on the SN it seems to be from the first production run
Item was discussed in the Nikon Web Magazine a few months ago
Should be in a museum somewhere

Anyone know what it is worth-- make an offer