Regarding the post below, bear in mind that reviews are really just signposts. Hopefully they might serve to point you in a particular direction. (Assuming you intend to go somewhere, that is.) But these postings I've been writing about these four cameras are not the final word. Being able to use these cameras for a week or two gives me much more insight into them than you could get standing at the counter in a camera store (and some of us don't have that pleasure these days, at least not as often), but it doesn't make me a deep expert on every facet of their operation and capability. Heck, the first night I used the D700 I could barely work some of the controls—I switched the viewing screen from full view to histogram mode by accident, and it took me ten minutes to figure out what button to push to switch it back. After two weeks I get things down pretty well, but it's not like I know everything there is to know.
One of the interesting aspects of photographic technique is that you can pretty much keep learning for as long as you want to. Even if you own a particular model of camera and use it continually over a long period of time, you can still go on learning about it indefinitely. New firmware might come along, a new raw converter might come out that does better with your camera's files, you might hear a tip about settings or software that helps solve a problem you've had; a new card might make it faster, a new printer might provide a profiling option that improves your prints. You can certainly learn enough about your equipment and materials, but you can never truly learn everything.
And the thing is, photography's always been like that. I remember an article Howard Bond wrote for Photo Techniques about his film holders. Howard is a very accomplished large format photographer and printer who had been using an 8x10 for many years. But he occasionally noticed some softness in his negatives that mystified him. One day he got an idea, and devised a little tool with which to measure the distance between where the film holder seated against the camera and where it held the film...and he quickly discovered to his amazement that about a third of his film holders were significantly out of spec. In many cases he'd had enough depth of focus to cover up the discrepancy, but in some cases it would show up as unsharpness. So here's a guy who's very experienced, knows his equipment like the back of his hand, and who really is a very fine craftsman, and yet he still had something to learn about his equipment after using it for years and years. (He ended up throwing away something like three out of ten of his holders. That's according to my memory, which also throws away about a third of what it once contained, so please take that figure as provisional.)
The picture up above is Howard's.
P.S. It's possible I might be able to get Howard to participate in one of our print offers. He's not a braggart, and would never say such a thing about himself, but I really think he's one of the best printers alive. And if you've never seen a print made from an 8x10" negative, well...just imagine, oh, maybe an 800-megapixel digital camera.
I'll keep you posted.