Torn between D600 and D800

[sam_hunt]

<p>I have always had Nikon pro bodies but this time I bought the D800e and use it for sports and it's perfectly fine. Don't believe those that tell you it's only a studio or landscape camera, they obviously haven't used one. I have only used my D3 once since I bought the D800e. </p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>Zooms are a 24-85 (older one, w/out the VR), and an 80-400VR...<br />...the D600, camera plus two lenses- 24-85VR, and 70-300VR... Being kit lenses, I know they aren't great...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Should you consider this offer on the D600, then a word on these lenses. They're not your "usual" kit lenses but more than a cut above it. I would not dismiss them too easily.<br>

Choosing between the old 24-85 and the new 24-85VR, I'd take the VR lens. It's better (and frankly, the old AF-D 24-85 is not that great). The 70-300VR versus the 80-400VR is something to try too; I don't think the 70-300VR is better but it's quite a bit smaller, it has a more advanced version VR and the autofocus probably is a bit faster than the 80-400VR. Different trade-offs, so to speak, but the 70-300VR is a completely different thing than the 70-300G and 70-300D of years ago.</p>

<p>That D600 deal sounds really nice, in fact.</p>

[rick_m.]

<blockquote>

<p> I have always had Nikon pro bodies but this time I bought the D800e and use it for sports and it's perfectly fine. Don't believe those that tell you it's only a studio or landscape camera, they obviously haven't used one.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is completely unfair and wrong. I own both the D800 and pro bodies. The faster frame rates are vastly superior for action sports. You can take great sports shots one at a time. You can take more and better ones 8 to the second.</p>

<p>That is why virtually all pros who shoot fast moving sports use them and why Nikon can get tons of money for them. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>If you even need to ask whether you should get a D600 or D800, I would get a D600, but I would hold a D600 in your hands and make sure that you are comfortable with its controls. The D600 has the more amateur-grade controls similar to those on the D7000, D90, and D80. I personally prefer the controls on the D800, which is similar to the controls on the D300 and D700. However, I also have a D7000 and at least I have no problem switching among those bodies.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Some people still seem to be confusing pixel numbers, image resolution and linear magnification. The D800 will <strong>not</strong> allow you to print 50% bigger than a D600. And likewise the 24mp D600 won't give you prints twice as big as a 12mp D700.</p>

<p>For the same ppi print "resolution" a D600 can print 1.4x bigger than a D700, and a D800 can print 1.7x bigger. The print size differential between 24mp and 36mp is only 1.22, or 22% bigger. Factor in that most lenses will struggle to keep up with the pixel resolution of a D800, and the perceptible difference in print quality becomes almost negligible.</p>

<p>BTW, I'd forget any comparison to the F6. Once you've seen what a camera like the D600 can do you'll probably never touch 35mm film again.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>As suggested above, why not look at the D7000? I have a hard time seeing why a D600 is worth 3x the discount price of a D7000, FX sensor transplant notwithstanding. Not sure what Nikon's up to with FX pricing. If they really want to sell FX, they'll have to do way better, value-wise, than the D600. Perhaps Dave should hold off and wait for a better price or a better entry level FX body. The IQ gap between a D70 and D7000 isn't subtle.</p>

[wogears]

<p><a href="http://www.cameta.com/Nikon-D600-Digital-SLR-Camera-Body-Factory-Refurbished-72481.cfm">Cameta Camera</a>, as well as Adorama and others have the refurb D600 body for less than USD 1700.</p>

[Apurva Madia]

<p>Dave, D800 it is, hands down. I have been using it for last 2 weeks and the image quality is mind blasting. View an image at 100% and you will be surprised at its sharpness. The "new" Nikon color balance here is also to my liking. Its superbly ergonomic and beautiful to look at. It has been externally designed by Italdesign <em>Giugiaro, </em>its a stylish machine. Forget everything and just go for it!</p>

[vikas_kohli]

<p>Apurva - have you had a chance to compare D600 vs D800 ? I am curious to know if D600 comes close to D800 as D600 is what I am looking at too. </p>

<p>I am coming from D7000 which still suffers from the backfocus issues for me :(</p>

[Member69643]

<blockquote>

<p>BTW, I'd forget any comparison to the F6. Once you've seen what a camera like the D600 can do you'll probably never touch 35mm film again.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unless of course you like shooting film, which many people still do. Especially F6 owners, I reckon. The D600 is digital and produces wonderful images, but it's toylike compared to the F6 in build, and the F6 has a higher max frame rate. </p>

[Apurva Madia]

<p>Vikas, no, I haven't had a chance to shoot with D600. However I can tell you one thing. D800 is just fab. There are a lot of negative myths around the D800 like you can't hand hold, very large files, left focus issues etc. You definitely can handhold D800 at reasonable shutterspeeds if your shooting techniques like breath-holding are right. Files are a bit large- around 40 MB Lossless compressed 14 bit RAW and 20-25 MB large fine JPEGS. But one can get a 2 TB external hard drive very cheap these days and RAM is also cheap. The Left focus issues has been sorted out by Nikon and my copy is well after the cutoff serial number mentioned elsewhere on the net. <br>

By the way D7000 has the SAME pixel density as D800 so if you hand hold D7000 you definitely can with D800</p>

<p> </p>

[norfolk_nsfw_maybee]

<blockquote>

<p>By the way D7000 has the SAME pixel density as D800 so if you hand hold D7000 you definitely can with D800</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If the D7000 has the same pixel density as a D800, and If I pre plan for this situation, what advantage would there be going to a D800?<br>

Within my budget, apparently a little pre planning of photographs can save a lot of equipment dollars.</p>

<p>I crop most photos somewhat anyways, please help me understand this. I do not like to buy expensive equipment for the sake of buying equipment. I want results and image quality at the best price.</p>

[Apurva Madia]

<p>John, advantage of D800 over D7000 according to me is the Full Frame sensor which will give better isolation of subject (shallower DOF). Also D800 has much better dynamic range. And then of course there is this Cropping advantage, if you call it one.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Actually the D7000's pixel density is slight higher than that on the D800. But the D800 has the advantage of a much larger sensor; that means:</p>

<ul>

<li>more than twice as many pixels for larger prints</li>

<li>more room for down sampling to improve low-light results</li>

<li>compatibility with high-quality wide-angle lenses designed for FX</li>

<li>compatibility with PC-E lenses for landscape and architecture</li>

</ul>

<p>The D800 also has a better AF system, although I am also happy with the one on the D7000 and D600.</p>

[norfolk_nsfw_maybee]

<blockquote>

 

 

<p>Actually the D7000's pixel density is slight higher than that on the D800. But the D800 has the advantage of a much larger sensor; that means:</p>

<ul>

<li>more than twice as many pixels for larger prints</li>

<li>more room for down sampling to improve low-light results</li>

<li>compatibility with high-quality wide-angle lenses designed for FX</li>

<li>compatibility with PC-E lenses for landscape and architecture</li>

</ul>

<p>The D800 also has a better AF system, although I am also happy with the one on the D7000 and D600.</p>

 

 

</blockquote>

 

The price differential of $2,000 between the D7000 and the D800 could be spent on lens.

This would bring the capabilities of the D7000 very close to a D800, especially in the light gathering category.

I guess my opinion is to invest in glass, not the body, if money is limited.

My 105mm f1.8 lens from 1983 still WOW's me, even if only used on my D7000 body.

 

<img src="http://i1104.photobucket.com/albums/h332/sweetmk22/Anna/Anna105b800x447_zps801b0a40.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="447" />

 

 

 

I am in this for the long haul at the lowest overall investment. My photography skills need more effort than my spending skills!! LOL

 

[zack_zoll]

<p>John, you're partly right about the light-gathering ability. If the OP had no Nikon lenses whatsoever, then $2,000 worth of glass would be a much better purchase. I have no idea what he owns right now, but if he already had an f/2.8 zoom of some sort and a 50 f/1.4, then there is absolutely nothing that $2,000 will give him in terms of light gathering, unless he chooses to spend half of it on one of those Voightlander f/.95s with a less-than-stellar reputation.</p>

<p>Oh, or he could buy a manual 50 f/1.2. There's that too :)</p>

<p>Either way ... if he doesn't like primes, than once he has an f/2.8 zoom, the lens part of the brightness conversation is basically over.</p>

[vikas_kohli]

<p>Thanks Apurva. I really can't afford the additional 1200 dollars to get D800 instead of the D600 (with teh 24-85 lens available with 128GB SD card) as I am just a hobbyist ;) I know that's just my problem and no one can really help me there. </p>

<p>One thing I do wonder is if the dust/oil issues of D600 will force Nikon to upgrade D600 to something else shortly and then I will be really mad at myself. </p>

 

[Apurva Madia]

<p>Vikas,<br>

D600 with 24-85 has a real bargain offer going on with the lens thrown in practically for free. Grab it. I this D600 would be as fab and after all its the man behind the camera that matters. And Nikon wouldn't replace/upgrade D600 any time soon.</p>

[vikas_kohli]

<p>@Apurva -</p>

<p>Thanks.. I bit for the D600 from Adorama.. </p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"This would bring the capabilities of the D7000 very close to a D800"</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Not really. First of all, the D4 and D800 share Nikon's best AF system currently available. The D7000 does not. This made the choice easy for me.</p>

<p>With regard to IQ, the IQ of the D800 far exceeds the IQ of the D7000 IF you are comparing apples to apples (meaning you are not comparing the full frame of the D7000 to the DX cropped frame of the D800).</p>

<p>With regard to ergonomics, the D800 is far, far superior to that of the D7000. I have not used a D600 but did own the D7000 and was never happy with its size or controls. And it is missing numerous features a more advanced used would want.</p>

<p><em>"You can take great sports shots one at a time. You can take more and better ones 8 to the second"</em><br>

<br>

You may get more but not necessarily better. 8fps is not fast enough for most fast action sports. In fact, even 11 fps is often too slow to capture 'the' moment for fast action sports. I am getting consistently better sports action shots one-at-a-time as opposed to what I got with my D3 at 11fps. But if I were shooting for pay, I would choose the camera with the fastest frame rate.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>The price differential of $2,000 between the D7000 and the D800 could be spent on lens. This would bring the capabilities of the D7000 very close to a D800,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So exactly which lens would you get for $2000 (or even more) to give the D7000 the same capability as the D800 can to use the 24mm/f3.5 PC-E lens for tilt and shift?</p>

[norfolk_nsfw_maybee]

<blockquote>

 

 

<p>So exactly which lens would you get for $2000 (or even more) to give the D7000 the same capability as the D800 can to use the 24mm/f3.5 PC-E lens for tilt and shift?</p>

 

 

</blockquote>

 

Nobody said "same". Spending all that money on a D800 today cuts into the money most people have for future purchases.

If the D800 is a necessity today for making money, buy it. The OP said hobby. I am also a hobby picture taker. In that light, the D800 does not hold a candle to a D7000 and the camera I will get in 3 years with the money I have saved.

Again, I am in this for the long haul. The Mayan calender end of the world did not happen.

I was happy with a D70s and did not need a D80 or D90, which left me money for the D7000.

With my frequency of buying cameras, my next purchase will be a 50mp crop body! LOL

 

 

[dave_terry1]

<p>So I decided on the D600 kit at Costco. </p>

<p>I went to the Costco near me, and when I tried to pay for it, I found out I couldn't use Visa. This is really stupid, because I went home to buy it online, and I can use Visa on their website. So I will have to wait a few days before I can try it out.</p>

<p>Anyway, thanks for all the responses. It is much appreciated. I ended up choosing the D600 mostly because of cost. That and the lenses in the kit, since it seems like the 24-85VR is better than my current 24-85, and it's the lens I keep on the camera most of the time. </p>

[robert_goss_kennedy]

<blockquote>Spending all that money on a D800 today cuts into the money most people have for future purchases. If the D800 is a necessity today for making money, buy it. The OP said hobby. I am also a hobby picture taker. In that light, the D800 does not hold a candle to a D7000 and the camera I will get in 3 years with the money I have saved. Again, I am in this for the long haul. The Mayan calender end of the world did not happen. I was happy with a D70s and did not need a D80 or D90, which left me money for the D7000. With my frequency of buying cameras, my next purchase will be a 50mp crop body! LOL</blockquote>

<p>I disagree. I went from a D80 to the D800. The idea that the D800 has a 3 year life-cycle is incorrect. I can see myself using it in 10 years. The MP on it is just ridiculous and will be hard to beat for a while. It is also very well built. Unlike the cheaper Nikons. It reminds me more of an old F2 body in many ways than the newer D(whatever) bodies. And the shutter...dear lord, you can hear the quality in it. It is an almost pornographic sound it is so perfect. <br>

Yes, the D800 is 3x the price of the D7000. And the D7000 is a great camera. But the $2,000 you "save" isn't really a savings. You are actually getting more for that money. A lot more. Hell, it even has a PC socket! No more weird little hotshoe things! Under equal use, the D800 will outlast and outperform the D7000. And it will last me far more than 3 years.<br>

That said, you do make a good point in that there is no point in buying beyond what you need. I got to a point where my 6 year-old D80 wasn't keeping up with my work. My D800 should go to 10 years easily. Which, on a 3 year cycle = Well, what you would pay today in cheaper cameras. <br>

Of course I also have an F2 and two FT bodies and all the lenses I still keep around....</p>

<p>Those were some solid cameras...</p>

<p> </p>