Considering a second FX Body

I've essentially ditched using DX for everything except Ebay/routine online work(where the straight from camera JPEGs from my D200 are great) and the occasional outing with my D300s or D2x.

 

My problem is that I only REALLY have one FX body(I have a Kodak full-frame body, but I'm not counting it) and some of the older ones are getting within the range that I can afford. As of now, when I'm not using film(which I do still use fairly often) I use a D800.

 

Looking at my possible budget and the available options, a D3, D700, or D600 would be in my price range. I can make an argument for all 3:

 

1. D3-nothing handles like a single digit D body, although that could also make me less likely to take it out. Dual CF, which I prefer

 

2. D700-Handles similarly to my D800

 

3. D600-Highest resolution of the three, Battery in common with my D800, but on the downside SD only(I don't like SD cards).

 

I have cameras already that share batteries with the D3 and D700, but when traveling only having to carry one set of batteries and a single charger would simplify logistics. On the other hand, I have a BUNCH of CF cards, and using the D600 seriously would require an investment in more "big" SD cards than I currently have(plus I've lost and broken too many to trust the format).

 

So, can anyone provide some insight?

 

I'll also add that just getting another D800 is tempting, but would probably stretch my budget a bit at the moment.

I've owned all 3. IMO, the D600 would deliver the best image quality of the 3, and as you point out, the D3 is the most satisfying body to use, but I would find a way to get a D3s instead of a D3.

 

In the real world, I think image quality from a D600 is a good bit closer to the latest cameras than D3/D700, especially in poor lighting. Its not so much the MP, but just about everything else. I am about the only Nikon user that did not love the D700 I had, it morphed into my half of a D3s. Of course, any of them can deliver great images.

 

On Ebay, the pricing difference between any of them is not large, It probably makes the most sense to back up your D800 with another unless there is some feature that you don't have with a D800 but need.

 

One more note: I was able to pick up a very good deal on a 2nd D810 not too long ago, they seem to not sell for much more than a D800. Guess Nikon is selling the D850 pretty well, which I think is making used D8X0 pricing very attractive.

Edited March 28, 2018 by robert_bouknight|1

Personally, none of the three. Once I enjoyed 36MP, it was hard to get back to the AA-equipped 12MP D700 (which has the same sensor as the D3). Poor dynamic range of the D700/D3 is another point against (quite similar to the D300, in fact). D600 - with the oil issue I wouldn't even consider one; at least go for a D610 if you have to but a D750 would still be a much better choice (several recalls notwithstanding).

 

2nd D800: certainly an option - but I'd rather wait and get a D810.

Thanks guys.

 

With the D800, I've REALLY come to enjoy both the dynamic range and the high ISO performance(I don't think twice about cranking it up to 3200 if I need to, and can get a great 8x10 from 6400).

 

The D600 seems to have better high ISO performance than either of the other two I mentioned.

My vote's for a D600 that's been serviced by Nikon for the oil drop issue. As for SD cards, you can get two mfgr-refurbished 64GB Sandisk Ultra Plus cards on eBay for $37 right now. Edited March 28, 2018 by chulster

Actually, I bought a D 750 to back up my DF - that worked well. Recently I got a used D 7200 to get a bit more reach with long lenses. It is virtually identical to the D 750 operationally and takes the same batteries. I have been very pleased with it, and with the 1.5 factor, virtually doubles my lens collection. I'm certainly thinking that the combination of FX & DX offers the greatest flexibility esp for travel. On the screen, the images look the same - I will admit, I haven't printed output from the D 7200 13x19, but I suspect the results will be comparable.

I kept my D700 as a backup when I got my D800e - partly because I was expecting it to be better at high ISO than the D800 (it definitely isn't). While the handling style is similar, the main thing that freaked me out on the rare occasions I tried to use both, or when the D800 was off for a service, was the swapped "+" and "-" buttons. Things like dial directions are configurable, but these aren't, and every time I tried to chimp an image the magnification went the wrong way. I traded them both in for my D810 - but then I don't really do professional shoots (and the only time I've been talked into shooting a wedding, I hired a spare D810). The D800/D810 distinction was much less intrusive, at least in the direction I went. Having used a D810 alongside a D500, I suspect the D810/D850 transition will be relatively painless too, unless you're really into the touchscreen.

 

I've vaguely been thinking of getting a spare body, not that it's the best use of my limited funds just now, but I'm torn between the "staying FX" and "getting something as small and portable as possible, with a little more reach" - which would tip me towards something like a D3200. I'm monitoring any forthcoming mirrorless launch mostly for this reason. My current only backup is an F5, which isn't really much of a backup.

 

With your budget, I'd say the D700 is a lovely body, but it's very similar to the D800 except when it isn't, which is frustrating. The D3 at least definitively handles differently, and therefore might cause less finger confusion. (I have a split ergonomic keyboard on my desk and a laptop that I move around; the ergonomic keyboard is set up in the Dvorak layout and the laptop is standard qwerty. I can cope only because they're different enough that I don't get confused.) Other than the speed advantage, I'm not sure how much a D3 really gives you over a D800; a D3s would be more appealing in my book because of the low light ability, but it costs more. The D600 is definitely the only one of these with the modern sensor, but it'll feel like a toy next to the others (so, yes, it's lighter) and obviously you've got the limited AF module and shutter mechanism. Whether you feel you need better depends a lot on what and how you shoot.

 

A bit of me wants to say that, if you have a D800 and a small amount of spare cash, can you trade it for a D810? While the individual improvements are small, they're collectively quite significant, and I don't regret my upgrade (though I do want a D850, or whatever Nikon might produce in this line next if I have to save for long enough).

 

I'm not sure any of that was concrete advice, but I hope some of the extra input is useful!

A bit of me wants to say that, if you have a D800 and a small amount of spare cash, can you trade it for a D810? While the individual improvements are small, they're collectively quite significant, and I don't regret my upgrade (though I do want a D850, or whatever Nikon might produce in this line next if I have to save for long enough).

 

Thanks for the advice as a whole, but I did want to comment on this.

 

I don't REALLY want to get rid of my D800 because it's had a recent CLA and has a new shutter. Thus, I feel like it's something of a "safe" investment for me in that it delivers all the IQ I want and is effectively a new camera.

 

I obviously don't have any problem buying used, but at the same time I'd have a hard time trading a known entity in my specific D800 body for an unknown history D810.

The difference between what you can get for the D800 and what a D810 will cost is $600–$700, which is not much less than what a good D600 will cost you. Interesting choice, but obviously the swap option results in no backup body.

Agreed, with both. It just sounded like the backup wasn't all that critical (if there hasn't been one so far), and the advantage of upgrading to a D810 is that the primary body gets better, not just a spare! So, just an option. But yes, it certainly doesn't achieve the intent of getting a spare body, and there's always a chance of something having happened to a used body (and the price is higher if you deal with a reputable dealer who could cover this).

 

I would guess used D800 prices are still dropping as those, like me, with a D810 are slowly upgrading to D850s? There are worse ideas than to sit tight and wait for an affordable D800. All the other options are compromised... but they're also all decent bodies.

 

FWIW, I considered a D3 when I first switched to Nikon, and stuck with my D700 plan because a) the on-body flash is useful, especially as a flash trigger, b) batteries are cheaper and smaller, c) the camera is easier to carry, and d) it has a vibrating sensor clean thing that I believe the D3 doesn't. Countering that, the D3, apart from speed (although not much if you stick a grip on the D700) is certainly more solid, and has niceties such as the ability to adjust the aperture from the body while in DoF preview (which the D8x0 bodies can also do) - most noticeable if you're zooming a variable aperture zoom. Plus, new, the D700 was cheaper. But there's not much in it. The D600, for better or worse, is a D7000 with an FX sensor.

 

Good luck, whichever route you took. I looked at a Kodak as a backup at one point myself!

I looked at a Kodak as a backup at one point myself!

 

Don't do it unless you're just getting one out of collecting curiosity!

 

First of all, it's a cheap body through and through-it's an N80 with the Kodak add-ons stuffed in(that means no metering with MF lenses, which is a big deal to me, but I realize probably not to everyone). The "add ons" make it a fairly bulky and heavy body, and I've actually run into issues with mounting certain lenses due to the "chin." My 24-85 3.5-4.5 that I use as a walk-around won't mount as there's not enough clearance between the VR switch and the "chin."

 

It's noisy as all get out at anything beyond base ISO, and the max ISO actually decreases if you opt for the highest resolution and/or RAW files. Like the Fuji bodies, it's also slow and stops completely(meaning you can't change settings or access the menus) while it's writing to the card. From the time you flip on the power switch to the time it's ready to shoot, it takes probably 30 seconds. Unlike most Nikon bodies, if you leave it "on" it draws about the same amount of power sitting idle as when it's actively being used. The batteries are big, and even when fresh(I bought two new ones) are only good for a few hundred shots at best.

 

Once you go through that, the images really aren't that great. The dynamic range is limited-I'd say worse than CMOS Nikons of the same era or even older ones like the D2X-and I find the color rendition to be weird. I've never used the Kodak software(I have it) and MIGHT get better results for processing RAW files, although given the age of the camera I doubt the Mac version is Intel compatible. Lightroom 6 and Apple Photos do both support RAW.

 

I think the only reason ANYONE bought the oddball beast was that it was the first Nikon mount camera with a full frame sensor. The D3 killed it pretty quickly. Admittedly, I've been told that IQ from the SLR/n is a lot better(or the DCS/14nx, which is DCS/14n upgraded with SLR/n "guts") but I've never even seen one for sale. It's a shame-Kodak was THE early leader in DSLRs and digital in general, and as seems to be a common story with Kodak in those days they had good ideas that they just couldn't execute.

I personally would pick the D3. I don't know if the D3s would deliver better image quality but the features like live view and video I don't want. I don't want the D700 because it's no better than the D3 in any respect. The D600 would have much higher resolution but it's the bottom line. I rather have the top of the line and old.

:-) Thanks, Ben. I've got to say I was looking at the Kodak as a backup to the D700 (again, with the F5 as a "backup"). It's a lot less tempting now that a D700 is a lot more affordable. I wouldn't turn one down as a curio, but if I was going to play with an elderly camera I'd be a lot more interested in, say, a D1.

 

BeBu: I only mentioned the D3s because the high ISO performance (above about ISO 1600) is significantly better than the D800, and about what the D850 does in the same range (at least according to DxO). The D3s is about as much better than a D800 as a D800 is better than a D700, at high ISO. If that trick doesn't matter to you, it's not relevant; I sometimes find myself shooting friends in dimly-lit pubs, and so I do sometimes shoot above ISO 5000. I've wondered about a D3s myself, although now the D850 seems wiser. The D5 still has an edge (roughly matched, according to DxO's latest update, by the new A7 III). I'm fond of ISO 64, but Sony do seem to be able to hold their behaviour better at higher ISO than Nikon's high-pixel cameras. Unless Nikon are deliberately trying not to sabotage the D5 sales with their own D850...

 

I do like live view, partly because I don't always get the AF module to work, and partly because it's useful for macro and tilt/shift lenses. I was actually waiting for Canon to update the 5D to have live view (which eventually appeared in the 5D2) when the D700 was launched and I switched systems. To each his own, though. Even the D800's live view is somewhat compromised (pixel skipping, locks the camera until the write is done); the D600's may actually be better. The D3 and D700, without video, can do live view. Video I treat as a "nice to have", but the D600 isn't going to be much better than the D800 here (and it lacks "power aperture"). For me, having a flash, having automatic sensor ultrasonic cleaning, and being easier to carry around were all fairly significant points in favour of the D700 over the original D3; the D700 does, obviously, have down sides too. And you may or may not share my opinion that a "similar but annoyingly different" body can be worse than a substantially different one. It's roughly the same as the D300s, so I guess you'll know whether you have a problem switching between that an the D800.

 

Executive summary:

• D600: Best sensor, lightest system, worst AF, weakest build, D7x00 UI. Only one with video.
  
• D700: Slowest (without grip), same weight(ish) as the D800, D800-style handling (but with generation changes). Sensor cleaning, integrated flash, otherwise mostly a D3.
  
• D3: Fastest (ignoring grips, by a mile), heavy, very solid, no flash, no sensor cleaner. Does have independent aperture lever control.
  

If you want to shoot at high frame rates (without your D300s) the D3 will do it, and the D800 won't. (The D800 will get to 5fps in a 1.2x 25MP crop, so I don't consider it to be slower than the D700 or D600 unless you put the grip on the D700. The D810 closes the gap to 6fps with the same trick.) I'd pick it for sport and any wildlife for which I didn't need reach. It's the only one with anything the D800 can't do better.

 

If you want vaguely modern sensor performance and decent resolution (compared with anything but a D8x0 series) and don't care about speed or autofocus, and if you want a light backup in case of main camera failure, the D600 isn't a bad idea. I'd pick it for landscapes and still life, maybe wildlife if you need the pixel density for reach. I'd be worried about the AF for sports or less predictable wildlife, but the lightness might make it viable on the street.

 

If you want a backup that's similar to the D800 (and especially D300s) and you want to have them both around your neck with different lenses on, the D700 is it. I loved mine. But you don't get the modern sensor of the D600 or the pro speed of the D3. I'd not take it if I cared about resolution or dynamic range, but if I needed something portable with decent AF, it's a good compromise.

 

Pick your poison?

I haven't printed output from the D 7200

Prints from a high-end, 24Mp DX, show very well, particularly when using good glass.

Having been through a similar issue in the last year my first suggestion would be another D800 if budget allows. You like it (I do too) and if it does what you need or want another one makes sense and it is easy to go from one to the other. Second recommendation is the D3. You're right about the single digit cameras and for me Nikons' top of the line bodies, film or digital, have always been noticeably better and easier to use.

 

Rick H.

Thanks for taking me through all these arguments, gentlemen (well.. I think most of you are .. and very few women seem to be eager to discuss these very very important matters! ;-) )

I am (also) still very happy with a D800, and D300 + D200 as 'backups'. Needless (?) to say: those two see little use, nowadays.

Prices of second hand D800's have been dropping gradually and seem to be hovering around €1000 now in The Netherlands.

Somewhat below the D850 new, let's say .. in fact €2700 below a new D850!

Which doesn't mean that I can just spend those €1000 on a second D800 right now, so your thanks again for your arguments.

Some time ago, I got a D810, as the (new) prices on those are now really nice with the D850 out. Which leaves me at present with 2 FX bodies.

And being a complete hobbyist, I just can't imagine why I need the second body around (*). I never take them out together, I don't need an instant backup, and all these bodies are build to last so I'm not overly worried. With film cameras, I find it makes sense to carry more than one (with different films in them), but for digital, I just don't see the need for hobbyist use.

 

So, maybe a very silly 4th option: none. Enjoy the D800, shoot the hell out of it, and if/when something happens, see what makes more sense: replacement or fixing it.

Or maybe the better question I ought to ask: what's the reasoning for wanting a second body that does the same as your principal body and does not add functionality/options?

 

(*) Not decided yet what to do with the D700 - it's still a lovely body but alongside the D810 I don't see myself using it much from here on. Resale value is reasonable, so maybe after some CLA, it'll go on sale.

Unless you need the high fps or the extreme ISO of the D3S, I'd not consider it. I don't really go near mine now I have a D810.

 

It's big, heavy, a bit clunky and built to survive the Zombie Apocalypse, probably as a weapon. It uses crazy £££ batteries and I'd guess beginning to approach it's 'Sorry we can't get the spares' time of life.

 

As a real eye-opener, it's possible to get a NEW D850 (grey import) here in the UK (and EU) for £2319. That's nearly £1200 below RRP. Now I know why D800 and D810s used price are dropping!

Edited March 29, 2018 by mike_halliwell

Mike: I'd have taken the battery argument against the D3 as well, except that Ben says he's already got the batteries (presumably from the D2x). The only reason I brought it up is that it can do one thing (shoot at very high ISO) that neither the D3 nor D800 can do as well. That's been known to matter to me, although not quite enough to buy one; it may not matter to Ben. I definitely didn't use my D700 once I had a D800 because there really was nothing it could do better.

 

Are there really spares problems? The D3s is newer than both the D3 and D700, although I'm sure more D700s were produced. I'd have thought a lot of parts were shared between them; if the D3s is in trouble with this, I'd kind of expect them all to be. On the other hand, the D600 wasn't on the market all that long before it got pulled with the oil on sensor issue - though it shares a lot with the D610.

 

Still saving for the D850 (unless Nikon get a successor out by the time I've saved up), but good to know, Mike. :-) The pound seems to be getting slightly stronger, which is good for buying camera kit, although this isn't the place for a political discussion about why that might be. I've had another version of the training course that tells me you're not allowed to refuse to service parts sold in a different region, so "grey market" in the UK isn't quite the issue that it is for the US crowd. (I'm not clear what happens were I to move to the US - whether I'd have trouble getting any of my UK-bought Nikon gear serviced.)

Ah, missed the batteries for the D3, only for the D300/D700, ie EnEl3. The one battery/one charger is a definite wish. I only have the dual EnEl4 charger, it's HUGE!

 

I'd go for another D800 as prices continue to drop. There are some stunning 2nd hand-from-dealer prices around. With a brief look around there are lots in the UK for ~£640.

 

If Nikon USA has a list of legitimate imports, I guess (!) there's a list for other official import countries?

 

For nearly 1/3 off, I'd go grey in a heartbeat....:)

In my opinion its worth going upwards when getting a second body to enjoy a better sensor and tech. I picked up a D850 (I'm in the UK) to go along with my Df. However if you don't feel like spending your wages on a new camera (which I really don't as I don't earn enough) then you can get a D850 or whatever for 'free' if you do a bit of ebaying (or similar) in your spare time. I have little of that either but with 72 purchases and subsequent resales (from junk shops, charity shops etc) I got my £2,650 together along with the original payments in just over 4 months. I continued and am almost half way to getting the 105mm f/1.4 'for free' to go along with it. Its easy to do and a bit of fun as well.

 

The D850 in my opinion has the best sensor to grace a Nikon camera - as good as the Df - and that's saying something. If you have some built up junk, get rid of that and turn it into a D850 - and clear out the loft / spare room at the same time.

You're quite right Ian, how can one person use 6 macro lenses.....;)

 

If you don't use it and it has a low resale value, it's only going to get lower!

 

Ah, the infamous Spring clear-out. Could it be this year???

I am biased against the D 600 as a second body. I had two of them and I had to return both as they both had bad shutters that sprayed oil on the sensors. And I did not like the button setups that were "behind" my other FF at that time, a D 700. I would get a D 810 if your budget allows for it. Right now my FF are a D800e and a D810. I do not know what software you use to process your raw images, but Nikon Capture NX 2 will process RAW files from the D 800 but not the D 810.

Thank you all again for your comments, and for giving me a lot to consider.

 

High ISO performance IS a consideration for me. I think I've mentioned before that I'm content with what the D800 does at 6400, but the D3s does look to give roughly 1 stop over the D800 in "usable" ISOs. That bumps it up to consideration.

 

I think that at this point the D700 is out-it's similar in price and performance to the D3.

 

I'm STILL considering the D600. My local shop has one attractively priced, and they've offered to check on/send it off for the shutter repair if it hasn't already been done.

 

I have both a D2H and a D2X, and consequently have accumulated a half dozen or so batteries for those(I bought some new aftermarket ones not too long ago). I also have the single bay charger, which is a fair bit smaller than the standard D3 dual bay although still big.

 

As far as control similarity-here's what's important to me:

 

1. I need to be able to easily change between aperture priority and manual. I don't like command dials as a general rule, but they're workable within those criteria

 

2. I want ready access to ISO and exposure compensation. It seems like any body under consideration here is okay in the latter, but I'm not sure about the D600 in the former.

 

3. I want a function button that I can program to set non-CPU lens data-that also seems to be there on all of these bodies.

 

4. I don't use this functionality as often, but differences image review-particularly scrolling and zooming-drive me crazy. It MIGHT be a make or break issue if any of these are appreciably different from my D800. I think the D300 is more or less the same as my D800, though, so I don't expect that to be an issue.

but I'm not sure about the D600 in the former.

I'd be hard pressed to find a worse location for the ISO button than what Nikon chose for the D600 (and others) - and AFAIK, there's not an option to reprogram a function button or the movie record button to take over that function (which is possible with current Nikon bodies).

I think the D300 is more or less the same as my D800

 

As Andrew pointed out with the D700/D800, the + and - zoom buttons are reversed - the same is true for the D300/D800 pair. Apparently not an issue that has driven you crazy yet ;)