I have been very impressed with D800. If this holds up, I might be switching.
Let me ask everyone something. The Mark III is supposed to have a 15 x's faster processor that the Mark II, Digic 5, a new codec, nearly twice the MPS, a sensor perfect for video downscaling--what am I missing?--and we are to believe that the Mark III is not capable of clearly resolving a far, far, better video image than probably any other DLSR type camera, to any say nothing of for gosh sakes it predecessor the Mark II with a vastly slower processor, mis-matched sensor for video, Digic 4, etc. etc. of which it is barely if at all better?
IE could not Canon have made the Mark III given its specs an absolute video MONSTER rivaling much more expensive cams if they wished?
Could not Canon, if they wished, have "released the hounds" and maybe still could via a firmware update allow the 5d Mark III video to be mind-blowing in every way?
That Canon seems to have chosen to cripple the Mark III is as much the reason I cancelled my Mark III order as the soft image. There has been a wrong turn taken. That they were willing to prevent us the end user from accessing the video feed in a useful way perhaps tells us all we need to know about who won the battle over whether to cripple the video capabilities of the Mark III.
My two cents, spoken in the hopes that Canon admits it erred and fixes this pronto. I really don't want to have to switch to Nikon, but I am thiiiiiiiiiiis close.....