So, why is not having a low-pass filter (810) better than having one that doesn't anti-alias (800E)? I thought the low-pass filter is useful for protecting the sensor from dust...
If your camera is in good enough condition to be sold as "mint" or "near mint" condition then you obviously haven't used it very much.
There is a difference between 'use' and 'abuse'. I sold my 2-year old iPhone 4S back to Apple and got their maximum possible buyback price (for 'mint'- which anyone who sold back to Apple will know, is pretty rare). And I used my phone every day, all the time.
Snobbish generalizations aside, these incremental improvements will send a bunch of Nikonians scurrying to pick up the last of the 800s at their current price before they are discontinued. Maybe that was the ulterior motive- to boost D800 sales!
Better lenses...yeah, as long as you don't shoot UWA...cus besides the 17mm TSE Canon is pretty weak in that regard. I'm still using my old 5D2 but I would be a pretty happy camper if Canon came out with something like the D810.
Nikon has one excellent fast UWA zoom, yes. But the other three are quite mediocre. And with the new 16-35 IS, Canon has closed that gap quite a bit (if early samples can be believed).
It is funny how people read posts on the forums and make these generalized comments! Other than a fast UWA, Nikon isn't significantly better in ANY aspect compared to Canon lenses. Head-to-head they are either close or Canon is much better. And that fast UWA isn't the paragon of lenses. Short range, difficult to use a filter, expensive, and prone to flare. How many Nikonians use the 14-24, I ask?