I'm afraid that Nikon has us beat

I think everyone has missed my point. I "fixed" my original post to make it more clear that I was specifically speaking about a very heavy crop from the Nikon image (approximately 1.5% of the original file).

Of course Canon bodies can resolve fine feather detail - I just meant that they cannot do so to exactly the extent that the D800 can. I hope this clears things up.

I understood your point.
I am impressed by the crop.
I wish my 60d could do that well.
But for most of us, we'll just wait til Canon comes up with something.

Although the switch to Nikon looks better when you start seeing that their new lenses cost thousands less than Canon's new stuff.

200-400 f4 from nikon is almost $4k less! (im a zoom guy not a prime guy).

jhayesvw wrote in post #14284783
Although the switch to Nikon looks better when you start seeing that their new lenses cost thousands less than Canon's new stuff.

200-400 f4 from nikon is almost $4k less! (im a zoom guy not a prime guy).

Depending on how crazy Canon decides to get on the official pricing for the 200-400 I think some people could certainly say "hey, I can buy the nikon equivalent, a Nikon body, and STILL save money" and end up having both systems. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

Well, since the D800 is a full frame body, the actual "spatial" resolution/pixel density is the same as a 14MP 1.6 crop camera, so a close crop like that would be the same as a close crop from an "older" Canon 1.6x crop body. And, I haven't used a 7D, but if Canon can "perfect" an 18MP crop sensor so that 100% crops can come out with great sharpness and clarity, then they would exceed the spatial resolution of the D800!

So I don't know how much this really shows us, I think the strengths of the D800 would be in areas other than producing "close crops"...although I do like it when I can get a high quality close crop!

Interesting thread, thanks for posting this Tom. You're right on concerning the hard crop quality that Nikon has achieved, they do appear to have raised the bar. For me personally I'm not sure there's a need for the bar to continue to be raised a whole lot higher. Certainly there will come a point of little or no appreciable return for the investment. My attention has shifted more toward camera functions like consistent focus accuracy rather than image quality. Today I'm more than satisfied with the quality that the Mark IV and 500L combo provide. If I get the technicals right and apply proven techniques in the field that I've learned I'm able to crop considerably and produce images that are very detailed. Like yourself I strive for images that will satisfy potential buyers but more importantly my own critical eye. I don't compete with my work very often and I certainly don't hold a candle to the guys at Naturescapes but the image below taken with the Canon 5D classic and 100-400L cropped quite well, even though it was taken in the shade and slightly underexposed in desperation for sufficient shutter speed.

^ anyone should be happy with the above photo....I know I sure would be!

That crop *is* insane.

I wish I had thousands upon thousands of dollars to throw into this photography game... >.<

jhayesvw wrote in post #14284783
I understood your point.
I am impressed by the crop.
I wish my 60d could do that well.
But for most of us, we'll just wait til Canon comes up with something.

Although the switch to Nikon looks better when you start seeing that their new lenses cost thousands less than Canon's new stuff.

200-400 f4 from nikon is almost $4k less! (im a zoom guy not a prime guy).

The Nikon 200-400 isn't that great, the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS beats it and is even cheaper... So no reason to go for Nikon

freddyronny wrote in post #14307296
The Nikon 200-400 isn't that great, the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS beats it and is even cheaper... So no reason to go for Nikon

Doesn't the Canon also have a 2x tele-converter built in? So, potentially a 400-800 F8...

Z...

Bird photography that includes birds in flight requires a camera with a high frame rate. The 1D4 is still the best all around bird photography camera in the land, IMO.

EtherealZee wrote in post #14307325
Doesn't the Canon also have a 2x tele-converter built in? So, potentially a 400-800 F8...

Z...

It has a 1.4X built in.

280-560 f/5.6

freddyronny wrote in post #14307296
The Nikon 200-400 isn't that great, the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS beats it and is even cheaper... So no reason to go for Nikon

ive seen many wonderful photos from the 200-400 Nikon and the 120-300 OS Sigma.

theyre both pretty heavy, I like my 100-400L for its light weight and IQ.
i probably wont upgrade for years.

It is the shooter not the gear.

that Nikon crop is amazing. Lucky he got the shot off with all the problems being reported here with that camera.

It was sharpened...still pretty decent though.

I think OP is newest Nikon fanboy