Is the Nikon d700 a better buy than the d800?

Nevermind the pixels and the cost! Is the picture quality better of the d800 due to new processor?

D800 give the hd video

Hi Wesley - I think DxOMark said it best, "… The D800 gives up the very high sensitivity of the D700 in favor of higher resolution."

The D800's 36MP resolution is for photographers who want to enlarge their photos beyond 11x14 - while the D700, like the D3 and D4, is for photographers who want to take pictures in very low light without camera shake.

That said, the D800 does a great job in low light, but Nikon traded sensor sensitivity against resolution with this camera - and resolution won.

If you want a Nikon full frame camera, want higher resolution than the D700's 12MP, but don't need the D800's 36MP and don't want to pay £1865, the 24MP D600 may be a good choice at £1350: http://www.amazon.co.uk/...B009A689TE

Hope this is helpful

D700 wins. In strong light at low ISO like from base to ISO 400 it's probably hard to tell them apart. From ISO 800 to 6400 it's the D700 all the way. Even with DxOmark scores the D800 higher, the scores are flawed, well at least the way they display them.

You have to dig into the menu to find the real score and change it from "print" to "screen"

The test as published favors higher resolution sensors, but in reality when you view actual RAW files with no processing, the D700 images are cleaner.

A new and better processor can't fix an image sensor that performs at a lower level. The only real advantage I see between both Sony image sensors, noise aside, is the dynamic range, the newer sensors have so much more dynamic range. But I'll take the lower noise. I just purchased a used Nikon D700 for this reason, It goes for between 1/3 or 1/2 the price of a D800, and the video in the D800 and the extra pixels are two things I don't really need.

I'd also take a new Nikon d600 over the D800, a lot less money, and cleaner at high ISO.