Sorry for the slow reply. I was away shooting and off line.
I also enjoy reading the WetPixel camera reviews. I was making suggestions that I thought could make them better.
Adam - perhaps the News announcement of Alex's testing of the D4 in Iceland included the picture of the camera that your link shows. But I just did a quick look of Alex's full story entitled "Nikon D4 Underwater Testing, Live updates from Iceland" as it appears in the digital Slrs/Housings forum. There is no picture of the D4 itself anywhere in that story-forum topic. But there are more than half a dozen pictures of the Nauticam housing or parts of it on the four pages of the field test. So to me, this looks like more of a D4 housing review/promotion than a camera review.
Just to clarify Fred's query. This was a Live Updates From The Field Thread:http://wetpixel.com/...showtopic=45907
Rather than the Wetpixel review of the D4 (which as it happens, starts with a picture of the camera):http://wetpixel.com/...4-field-review/
I shared images from the field - because these were the only (and I believe still are the only) underwater photos from a D4 in a D4 housing that have been shared on the internet. I shared images of the housing as this was the only housing for the D4 in the world at the time. It is more than a month later and I am not sure yet if there is another that there still has been diving. There were already thousands of photos of the D4 camera available online. There were no photos of a working underwater housing. It made sense to share what was newsworthy - D4 underwater photos and D4 housing - that made them possible.
For the record the Nauticam D4 is not my housing, I have yet to decide on which housing to get myself. So I have no specific bias towards them. But they deserve praise for having a housing available so early and for it being such a good housing. Other manufacturer's will have to go some to better it - which benefits us all. There is no doubt that Nauticam are putting tremendous effort into housing ergonomics and they 100% listen to their users and adopt ideas and suggestions from their user group. I'd suggest not discounting the Nauticam brand because of any perceived bias by the reviewer.
John-yes you are good.
Adam - I think you have a typo. Maybe a sticking 'o" on your keyboard!
Regarding the FX vs DX thing - I covered many of these points in detail in the D4 review, but I know that review is super sized making them hard to find.
D800 in DX:
Slightly better pixel per pixel than D7000. Although slightly less pixels. Better AF than D7000.
Poorer viewfinder (using D800 viewfinder in DX mode means a much smaller view than D7000 viewfinder). This is a significant point - unless you like small viewfinders!
Regarding the Tok (from D4 review):
Many DX users fear they will miss the 10-17mm, but actually they don’t that much. I have both FX and DX systems and when I swap back to the 10-17mm I find I see more of its optical flaws than I used to. On full frame the choice is Nikon 16mm and Sigma 15mm. The Sigma focuses closer, the Nikon is better shooting into the light (the Sigma is a flare monster).
For the record I was shooting the Nikon more than the Sigma in Iceland.
I agree with Fred about the cropping in post aspect of the D800, rather than need for a 10-17mm or indeed super macro accessories (from D4 review):
I believe that the D800 offers enough resolution to be a game changer. To change the way we shoot and take photos with the intention of cropping in post.
I think cropping in post is more appealing that changing between FX, 1.2x and DX underwater. Which is certainly something that requires stopping shooting and navigating menus. It is much more time consuming than twirling a zoom gear. As a replacement for the 10-17mm on the D800, I think you just crop in post.