lose some weight - replace D700 by D600?

<p>It's not that I want to "upgrade" anything in order to use the most recent stuff. It's that my NAS tells me, the D600 is much lighter than my D700 and that I am in an age where this starts to count...<br>

So I ask myself if I'd lose anything switching to the D600. Besides the missing eypiece-shutter and the obvious spec differences, are there any more hidden differences one only notices after some experience with it? For instance, how do the viewfinders compare with respect to brightness? Anything else worth to mention?<br>

What do you think about "downsizing" from the D700 to the D600? My lenses include 17-35 2.8, 70-200 2.8 VR II, Zeiss 100 macro and some other nice toys. </p>

<p>The viewfinder is "smaller" ... a little bit , won't worry most , but it worries me</p>

The only thing I can see you losing is using CF media - the D600 has dual SD slots. You do have "100%" frame coverage

in the view finder. Eye relief is the same: it is easy to see the entire frame in the viewfinder if you wear glasses.

 

 

If you primarily shoot landscapes and scenics it is a fine camera.

 

The autofocus does a fine job of tracking kids in motion (9-10 years playing soccer).

 

Dynamic range looks very very good as does the signal to noise ratio at higher ISOs.

 

The 10 pin port for things like electronic cable releases is smaller.

<p>There is no 10 pin port on the D600. Just USB.</p>

<p>Lighter is good. However, are there other ways to lower weight? CF tripod & Acratech head? Swapping for the Nikon 16-35mm 4? Buy SB-700 to replace SB-900? Wouldn't it be nice to have a Nikon 70-200mm f4 VR? Ooops, they don't have one. The 10 pin remote is a big issue for me because I like to shoot one camera as a remote, firing it with my CyberSync trigger.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>The D600 is a bit lighter and smaller than the D700, but it is not like a huge difference. The main thing you lose is AF capability. As Ellis points out, the D600's Multi-CAM 4800 is fine, as we learned from the D7000, but its 39 AF points definitely cover a smaller area than the 51 on the D700, and it is not quite as fast and accurate. You also lose the option to get to 8 frames/sec on the D700 with the MB-D10 and appropriate batteries.</p>

<p>What you gain from the D600 is 24MP, 100% viewfinder, dual memory cards so that you can write on two cards, but those are SD and tend to be slower. Of course, the D600 has HD video and therefore live view is much easier to use.</p>

<p>Whether going from the D700 to D600 is an "upgrade" depends on your needs.</p>

<p>According to Nikon's specs, the difference in weight is only 225g (about 8oz). I'm wondering if that's really such a significant weight saving compared to, say, an extra lens, spare batteries, a few filters or using a better carrying strap maybe? It's not as if you're forced to hold the camera body out at arm's length all day.</p>

<p>Out of interest I just weighed the change in my pocket - 106g or about 4oz - and that's on a fairly lightweight day for change. Add a set of house keys, and that 8oz begins to look like a very small saving indeed.</p>

 

<p>I think it's a worthwhile reduction in weight.</p>

<p>Nominally the D600 viewfinder eyepoint is greater than any other FX Nikon but I haven't used it so I can't comment on how it feels in practice. My local store says they're going to get 10 D600's this week or so. The Thailand factory seems quite fast ... </p>

<p>If weight is your only decision its probably not a bad choice. I love my D7000 body for the size, so the D600 is probably going to be awesome. But I think it really depends on what you need. For me I'm staying put with my D700. For me I deliver mostly web size content, so I don't need the extra overhead of 24mp. The auto-focus of the D700 is a lot better than my D7000 (39 point) and thats absolutely critical for me. Finally I like the controls on the D700 better. The levers for focus point, focus mode and metering a hugely helpful. That said, Nikon seems to be moving away from that external controls like the D700 has, so maybe I'm just going to be a relic. What would really interest me is a D800 w/ 16mp and awesome low light and great external contorls. Basically an upgraded D700. ;-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I just held both in my hands. The D600 definitely feels lighter. But I think it is more a case of finding justifications for another camera purchase.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What would really interest me is a D800 w/ 16mp and awesome low light and great external contorls. Basically an upgraded D700.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As I have said a few times, with the introduction of the D600, I have concluded that Nikon will not introduce a "real successor to the D700."</p>

<p>There is little doubt that the D700 (2008) took some sales away from the D3 (2007). That was why Nikon quickly upgraded to a D3S a year later (2009), adding superior high-ISO results and (basic) video capability to the D3S, but the D700 never received a corresponding upgrade, as I thought they would. The D3S added a bigger gap between the D3-line and the D700.</p>

<p>Essentially, if you need D3/D700 capabilities in a current camera, you need to get a D4. The more-affordable FX market is split between the D800/D800E and the consumer-level D600.</p>

<p>I discussed with Thom Hogan back in June when some of those D600 images first leaked from Thailand: <a href="00aVF6">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00aVF6</a>. Hogan mentioned that production was already underway over there. Therefore, Nikon Thailand already had a long build up (at least 3, 4 months) prior to the September announcement. That is why the D600 is immediately available with no shortage. The down side is that if they discover any major bug, you may need a major recall, but it looks like most of the D600's capabilities have already been tested out on the D7000.</p>

<p>Earlier this year, Nikon Japan was making 30K D800 a month and it was selling like hot cakes. I am sure Nikon can sell a lot more D600 at $2100. It'll keep Nikon's Thailand factory busy for a few more months before they prepare for the successor to the D300S.</p>

<p>Steven, I see no evidence that Nikon is moving away from external controls. The D800 actually has more direct external control available than the D700. Bracketing is now directly accessible instead of menu-mining, as is a virtual horizon and plumb-line. LiveView is also now a single button press away instead of requiring a two-handed twist of a locked knob, and the addition of an AF option button has made the choice of AF points more direct.</p>

<p>As for "awesome" low light capability; the D800 has that too. In fact the low light capability of most current DSLRs is truly awesome compared to the pathetic and gritty 1000 ISO that film limited us to. Let's keep a sense of perspective and look at what our technology <em>can</em> do instead of what it <em>can't,</em> and whinging that our amp's don't wind up to 11.</p>

The new port for the wired connection is the same one used to connect a GPS unit. It is under a seperate cover from the

HDMI and USB 2.0 ports and located in the lower left corner of the left side edge of the body.

<p>This is kind of silly.</p>

<p>Couldn't you simply skip lunch a couple days a week, or buy some light weight clothing to shave off a few grams, LOL.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's not that I want to "upgrade" anything in order to use the most recent stuff. It's that my NAS tells me, the D600 is much lighter than my D700 and that I am in an age where this starts to count...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I understand very well what you're talking about when you refer that weight counts, but I wonder if you have just "light" lenses and if not, you're also going to sell the 70-200 or everything that weights more than 6 or 700 grams...</p>

<p>Shun, I agree that Nikon's probably trying to avoid cannibalization of D4 sales. But that's still really just an attempt at making sales via vendor lock-in. At the end of the day there's still a definite market for a small body with a big sensor (look at all the buzz Fuji and Sony are generating).</p>

<p>This current mindset completely ignores someone who has no interest in a smaller body. It's a bit like calling software piracy theft. Not every sale of a D800s/D400 would be a lost sale of a D4. I find it hard to believe that Nikon is making insignificant amounts of money on their D600 and D800 line, so really, just what would they lose by offering a lower resolution D800?</p>

<p>This is one of those things I really like about the 4/3 and Micro 4/3 formats. They're comparatively open and, as a result, you see the cameras competing on features, quality, and price rather than vendor lock-in. It's a shame really, just take a look at Canon's 6D. One of the biggest reasons that dissatisfied Canon users are sticking with Canon in light of the tepid 6D is the cost of switching to another system. The quality of Canon's lenses and sensors is much further down on that list. That's not a loyal customer, that's someone who's stuck and will jump ship at the nearest opportunity.</p>

The D4 is meant for a completely different group of photographers than the D600. Anyone perusing the specs for the two

cameras who has a lick of common sense can figure that out. And if you are still in doubt go hold both in your hands. The

D4 is built for speed.

 

For photographers looking for a 24x36mm format Nikon that is smaller than the D3X and D4 class bodies , the D600 fills

the full frame resolution gap between the D700 and D800.

 

The Nikon managers who I've spoken with believe that if full time pros buy D600 bodies it will be to use as a backup or

remote camera. Having shot with the D600 for about a week now I'm not so sure that's going to be the case - if you are a

professional or advanced amateur and want a greater than 12mp Nikon body but don't see the need for 36mp or want to

spend the extra thousand and change for a D800 or D800E over a D600, going with the D600 is a total no brainer.

 

The D600 is far from a perfect camera. I think WiFi should have been built in and the ISO setting button should be on the

top deck. I also wish it had the AF and metering system of the D800/D4 - but whether those absences along with the

extra 12mp are worth the extra cost of the D800 (+ WiFi adapter) is going to be an individual decision.

 

As is,the AF and metering in the D600 work very well. The camera fills well in the hand and the control placement is

ergonomically logical even if you have, like me, hands that are on the large size.

 

He biggest complaint I have so far about the D600 is that Adobe ACR in photoshop CS6 and Lightroom 4 do not yet

support the D600 NEFs.

The D4 is meant for a completely different group of photographers than the D600. Anyone who has a lick of common

sense perusing the specs for the two cameras can figure that out. And if you are still in doubt go hold both in your hands.

The

D4 is built for speed and prolonged bouts of shooting at very frame rates.

 

For photographers looking for a 24x36mm format Nikon that is smaller than the D3X and D4 class bodies , the D600 fills

the full frame resolution gap between the D700 and D800.

 

The Nikon managers who I've spoken with believe that if full time pros buy D600 bodies it will be to use as a backup or

remote camera. Having shot with the D600 for about a week now I'm not so sure that's going to be the case - if you are a

professional or advanced amateur and want a greater than 12mp Nikon body but don't see the need for 36mp or want to

spend the extra thousand and change for a D800 or D800E over a D600, going with the D600 is a total no brainer.

 

The D600 is far from a perfect camera. I think WiFi should have been built in and the ISO setting button should be on the

top deck. I also wish it had the AF and metering system of the D800/D4 - but whether those absences along with the

extra 12mp are worth the extra cost of the D800 (+ WiFi adapter) is going to be an individual decision.

 

As is,the AF and metering in the D600 work very well. The camera fills well in the hand and the control placement is

ergonomically logical even if you have, like me, hands that are on the large size.

 

The biggest complaints I have so far about the D600 is that Adobe ACR in photoshop CS6 and Lightroom 4 do not yet

support the D600 NEFs and Nikon's moving away from that formerly standard 10 pin port.

<p>I'm always intrigued by those who look for lighter cameras. I've always preferred heavier cameras that fit my hand. The fit is more important to me than light weight. The lighter the weight the more susceptible the camera will be to user induced movement (laws of physics). The heavier the camera the more stable for those marginal shutter speeds. I always add weight to my cameras in the form of batterie grips, or even a wight attached via the tripod mount. Way back in the days I had custom metal bases the same size as the base of the camera cut by a machine shop and attached via a screw into the tripod mount. The result was better shots at slower shutter speeds hand held and much smoother panning for action shots. <br>

It also helps to balance the whole apparatus when you have a heavy long lens attached.</p>

<p>I'm pretty sure that more than a few grams separate the D4 from the D600. As for wanting a smaller, lighter camera... that's easy. Lighter cameras are nicer when you're lugging your gear around all day (like on a hike). Smaller cameras are less intimidating (making candid shots more relaxed).</p>

<p>What strikes me as perplexing is why people would want something as big as a D4. Surely if you're concerned about sharpness, and not concerned about size... you'll be shooting on a tripod all day long. Right?</p>

<p>FWIW, I don't want long, heavy lenses. In fact, I think that's perhaps the biggest thing missing from the D600 equation: small, lightweight primes. Yeah, sure you can still buy new AF-D primes that fit the bill. But they come with a host of negatives too (more CA on digital bodies than on film, sloppy manual focus, noisy autofocus, etc). I'd love to see something like a 24/4, 35/2, 50/2.5, 85/2.8 set. Small. Sharp. Light.</p>

<p>Yesterday, San Francisco's Chinatown was host to its annual Autumn Moon Festival. I brought four lenses with me (Mir 35/2, CV 58/1.4, 85/1.4D, 180/2.8 AF). I came to two conclusions. 1.) The D200 + 85/1.4D is about as heavy as I'd want to lug around with me for an extended period of time. 2.) The CV 58/1.4 still got the best results. I look forward to using the 85 on a full-frame camera, but the CV is just aces to use. Oh... and I won't miss the metering or dynamic range of the D200.</p>

<p>I got to use a D600 for a few hours this afternoon. They are in stock even in my small city. It is small, but still larger than my D5100. The focus is snappy and I did like the viewfinder. The meter seemed accurate even when I pushed it on tricky subjects. I liked the dual SD set up--I've had cards crash and lose several hundred shots before. The menus were typical Nikon and easy. The camera might work for me if I used my DX camera for tele shots and replaced the 17-55mm f2.8 with the 24-70mm f2.8. I could keep the 11-16mm f2.8 for ultrawide on the DX camera. I'm just not sure what I'd be gaining from all that though. Looking on my graphics monitor I wasn't seeing much difference between shots from D600 and D5100 at my typical ISO 400 & 800. What ended up being a killer for me was that there is no 10-pin remote. I didn't see anyway to connect my CyberSync triggers to fire the camera, and the dealer didn't know of any way either. He said there was only the little short ranged infrared remote. I could get by with just one camera not having a remote connector, but not both. Using remote triggering I can get two different shots at once. This is really handy and a big advantage for me. SO, I continue to wait to see what else Nikon comes up with. </p>

<p>If there is a way to hook a CyberSync receiver to either the D5100 or D600 so I can fire the camera remotely, somebody tell me.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p><em>What strikes me as perplexing is why people would want something as big as a D4.</em></p>

<p>It's much more comfortable to use in vertical orientation and also the viewfinder ocular is recessed which makes viewing easier. It's a camera designed for use all day long, whereas the other cameras in the lineup appear as if they were designed to be mostly kept in the bag and then, used for short sprouts. Well, that's my take anyway; I know there are people who like the handling of small cameras and prefer them. </p>

<p><em>Surely if you're concerned about sharpness, and not concerned about size... you'll be shooting on a tripod all day long. Right?</em></p>

<p>I'm sorry? There are situations where the mobility that only a hand-held shooter can have is required, and sometimes tripod use is simply impossible or forbidden. That doesn't mean you don't care about the quality of the results.</p>

<p><em>Smaller cameras are less intimidating (making candid shots more relaxed).</em></p>

<p>I've found the opposite to be true as if the camera lacks a vertical grip, the photographer's right arm is at the level of the forehead or even higher, which makes the photographer very obvious to spot from a subject's point of view. When holding a nice camera such as D3 series or D4, verticals can be made with the hands in a more natural position which makes the photographer look like they're part of the scene and doing something normal. Of course, you can mount a vertical grip to e.g. D800, but it's an awkward fit to my hands.</p>

<p><em>what would they lose by offering a lower resolution D800?</em></p>

<p>The issue is that there is a significant body of professionals who use the camera all day and require a D4 like body simply to stay healthy. The camera is also more robust and is designed to take a greater number of exposures before the mirror, shutter etc. wear out (so that a sports photographer doesn't have to replace the camera every six months). Now, if Nikon were to make a compact D800s with the D4 sensor and speed, it would sell more copies than a D4 because the majority of camera owners shoot very little and don't care about the characteristics of the larger body which is meant for day-in-day-out use. This would kill the commercial viability of the D4 and the professionals would move back to Canon which Nikon can't afford for image reasons. For Nikon, having a significant presence in the professional camera equipment market is more important than simply selling as many cameras as they can in the short term (but losing the game in the long run). It has been interesting to read the comments by studio professionals who have moved from the D3X to D800. I can't even translate the words used by some to describe the D800's handling from Finnish. Now, for someone who doesn't shoot much, but needs high speed, the D4 is not such a bad camera to buy. What I don't understand is why there is such great opposition towards the current situation - it is clear what Nikon's policy is. They tried having the high res model the flagship - that didn't work out commercially as well as the current approach of having the high speed model as flagship. But still there are always complaints, whatever they do. Personally I have more use for high resolution than high speed, but I prefer the large body type. Given the current choices if I had no camera right now, I would buy both D4 and D800, and use the D4 as my primary camera and D800 mostly for tripod based landscapes and macro. Right now the D800 is my technologically most advanced camera but its heavy data flow basically has meant I have to skip events because I can't keep up with the processing of my images. In fact I can already see the lack of routine in my shooting and mistakes that I wouldn't have done six months ago. </p>

<p>Regarding the D400 I think what they're waiting for is for it to be possible to do 24MP at 8 fps, and when they have a sensor and processing pathway ready for that then they will introduce it. This will then offer reasonably high speed in a compact and affordable package. I think 16MP at 8 fps they could do right now but then there would be questions as to whether the camera differentiates enough from the D7000 and why the D3200 has higher resolution (but no focus fine tune!). Personally I would be much happier to see Nikon make compact, moderately fast telephoto primes and zooms (300/4 AF-S VR, 80-400 AF-S VR, and a 400/4.5 AF-S VR) than a new high end DX camera, as carrying two separate cameras of different formats gets heavy. (A backup camera can stay in the car, but if one shoots an event with two formats, both cameras have to be carried along.)</p>

<p>Responding to the OP, there's something not so obvious you'd lose that may or may not matter to you: AEB. The D600 AEB is the same as the D7k, which is the same as the D70/70s from '05...meaning intentionally cheap and limiting, if that feature matters to you. So much for technological advances. It's a slightly overgrown D7k, I think, with maybe better DR than the D700 and a little more resolution, too. </p>

<p>I know what NAS feels like, but I'd wait, and maybe upgrade a CF tripod and Acratech head, get some lighting or an ND grad filter set, now software/new monitor, and wait and see how the D600 prices look after the upcoming holiday season. Me, I'm keeping my D700 and D7k for a while yet, but if you want a D600, then quit rationalizing it and just make yourself happy. Sounds like you have the lens end ready. Have fun!</p>

 

Deleted. I need to produce a link that will work here in photo.net