D600 ? an upgrade of D700 ??

[sam_clay]

<p>HIYA,</p>

<p>I have been asking a few questions on here regarding my "potential" upgrade. I love my D3100 but I have heard on several forums that the D600 is the upgrade on the now (no longer being made?) D700 ? <br>

is this correct ?</p>

<p>Plus, is the D600 which is full frame....better the the D7100 which is DX ? <br>

I know the obvious answer is to say..."it depends what you want to shoot".....well, ...I am still not established, (doing commercial work at the moment, and photo jour no work), but I need something which is ...I guess sharper then the D3100.<br>

will I benefit from a D600 and will I see the difference, say, if I were to take a portrait on my D3100 WITH my 85mm 1.8 Nikon lens or will it be better on the d600 with the same lens ?<br>

excuse my ignorance - I am new to all this. Generally, I just work with my eye, and my techy stuff I need to work up on...so any advice appreciated</p>

<p>many thanks, and huge thanks for all the advice I have had so far on this forum - so many brilliant guys helping newbies THANK YOU, </p>

<p>X</p>

 

<b>Moderator's note:</b> Please stop SHOUTING your thread titles. It's really not necessary. Thanks. :-)

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Hi Sam. This has been discussed in several threads on the Nikon forum, but I'll try to give a summary:<br />

<br />

The D600 is an improvement in <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=nikon_d700&products=nikon_d600&products=nikon_d7100">several ways</a> on the D700. It's cheaper and lighter, it's faster without a battery grip (5.5fps vs 5fps), it's higher resolution, it has two card slots, it has (arguably) better metering, it supports video, it's about a stop better at high ISO, it has appreciably more dynamic range at the low end of the ISO range.<br />

<br />

A lot of people complained that the D800 was a very different camera from the D700, mostly because of its resolution - not too surprising, since those who wanted higher resolutions in this market segment may well have bought a 5D2 instead of a D700. The D600 appears to have been Nikon's combined response to these people, and those asking for a cheaper full-frame camera (a market segment that Canon were about to occupy with the 6D).<br />

<br />

In part to differentiate it from the D800 (presumably), the D600 is a bit like a cross between a D7000 and a D800. It has the D7000's autofocus module, which is inferior to that in the D700. It doesn't take CF cards. It doesn't get faster (like the D700's 8fps) with a battery grip. It's not as solid as the D700 (the front plate is polycarbonate, whereas the D700 and D800 are all metal). There's a mode dial rather than the mode button on the pro bodies (changing mode takes two hands), and the dedicated ISO, WB and QUAL buttons are instead shared. It lacks the PC-Sync connector and ten pin remote of the pro bodies, and has a slower maximum shutter speed (and flash sync speed). There's no AF-On on the D600 (though you can reprogram AE-Lock to do it). And, because the D600 isn't a "pro" body, it doesn't count towards NPS membership. If you're coming from a D700, these changes may annoy you, especially if you don't really care about the 24MP - since the D600 is not "better" in <i>every</i> way, there are still people who want a "D750" - something like a D4 sensor in a D800 body. That should not detract from the fact that it's a much newer camera, and <i>is</i> better in a number of ways.<br />

<br />

Nikon went from a lowish resolution budget alternative to the D3, with the D700, to two options: The D800 is the D700's successor in handling, but it's the high resolution/low(er) speed equivalent of a D3x-class camera - though people tend to forget that you can get a D800 up to the D700's 5fps by putting it in 1.2x crop mode. The D800 is, effectively, the "D700x" (D3x sensor in a D700 body) that those who felt the D700's 12MP weren't enough have been asking for, turned up to 11 as a result of taking a few years to appear. The D600 is a cheaper, faster camera, for those who don't need or want the extra abilities of the D800 - and in being "faster", it's faster than the D700 unless you put a grip on the D700. Unfortunately, some of the D800 features you don't get by going with the D600 are some of the features that are in the D700. If those features matter to you, then the D600 is not necessarily an upgrade. If you want the ways in which the D600 is better, it <i>is</i> an upgrade.<br />

<br />

The D600 gives better ISO performance at the same aperture, and is somewhat easier on lenses than the D7100. The D7100 has a better autofocus system and is slightly faster. The D7100's pixel density and lack of AA filter may help you if you want to get more reach from your lenses; the D600 will give you more depth of field control. The D600 has a larger buffer if you shoot a lot of continuous frames. There is no "better" - each camera can do things that the other can't - but there <i>are</i> a number of people buying the more expensive D600 just because "more expensive" must make it better.<br />

<br />

(Nikon have some cross-over in their product lines, both between DX and FX, and between their previous generations and the current generation. They have been slightly changing the priorities of their cameras, meaning that it's not always the case that a more expensive, or newer, camera is better than the old one in every way - there are some trade-offs. This has always been the case at the high end - the D4 is lower resolution than the D800, and Canon's 1Dx is lower resolution than the 5D3 - but if you're a consumer trying to decide what to buy, it can be confusing to have to prioritize. Just don't ask about a successor to the D300s! [This comes up in a lot of threads in the Nikon forum. Many are convinced the D7100 is the successor, despite some limitations. Some others hope for a "D400".])<br />

<br />

On a D600, your 85mm lens will give you a wider field of view than on the D3100 or a D7100 - the DX cameras capture a region cut out of the middle of what the D600 can see. Both the D600 and D7100 have more resolution than the D3100, so you'll get more pixels in your images - you can print about 30% bigger with the newer cameras and have the same amount of detail. This also means you have to have lenses and technique that are about 30% better. Both new cameras - and especially the D600 - will have less noise if you need to shoot at higher ISO, and can recover more highlight and shadow detail from a scene if you edit it on a computer. The handling on the D600 and D7100 is pretty similar (the D600 is bigger), and is quite a step from the D3100 - there's far more immediate access to controls that you might like to change, and you'll need the menus far less.<br />

<br />

I hope that helps. DPReview has in-depth descriptions of all the cameras, and there are reviews on Photo.net as well. Don't be ashamed of ignorance - only be ashamed of not asking questions so you <i>stay</i> ignorant.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>D700 - no longer being made - correct.<br /> D600 - upgrade to D700. Yes and no - depending on whom you ask and what features are important to you. But you are essentially comparing 5-year old technology to a current one.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>is the D600 which is full frame....better the the D7100 which is DX ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Better for what or in what regard? For some tasks, I would prefer DX, for others FX.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>if I were to take a portrait on my D3100 WITH my 85mm 1.8 Nikon lens or will it be better on the d600 with the same lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>better in what aspect? With the D600 you will be closer (assuming you frame equally with both cameras) and have less DOF - this can be to your advantage or disadvantage. Will you see a difference - yes, no, or maybe - it depends. Fact is, yes there will be a difference - however minute - and that difference is important to some and irrelevant to others.<br /> If you can't get sharp images with the D3100 - then I don't think upgrading the camera is the answer.</p>

[charles_wrenn]

<p>One other note - the D7100 uses the same 51-point AF system found on the D700 and higher (D800/E, D3S, D3X, D4) while the D600 shares the D7000's 39-point AF system.</p>

<p>Sharpness is going to be more an issue of the lens and the photographer, than the camera body.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Yes, it would help to know what you mean by "sharper", Sam. At the per-pixel level, higher resolutions will make any problems worse - if something is blurry and you look at it in more detail, it will look <i>more</i> blurry. If you're getting tack sharp images from a D3100 but don't have enough pixels to produce a sharp enlargement, the newer cameras will make a small improvement, because they capture slightly more detail. You might find them slightly easier to hold steady because they're heavier, however.<br />

<br />

Charles is right to clarify what I meant by "better autofocus" on the D7100 - this is one of the major complaints that people (especially D700 owners) have about the D600. The issue is less one of having the extra points available than that they're clustered very near to the middle of the frame, making it awkward to focus on a subject away from the centre. (You have to focus, then recompose, which can result in focus shifting or give your subject time to move.) Note that the focus points are clustered at the image centre on <i>all</i> FX cameras, but all the others (D3, D700, D3s, D3x, D4, D800) have (approximately) the same focus module as the D7100 and, while bunched in the centre - it's not <i>as</i> limiting as the D600's. Have a look in the DPReview reviews (a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d7100/12">here</a> and <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d600/12">here</a> - which also shows what the D700/D800 autofocus looks like) for where the autofocus points are in the viewfinder.<br />

<br />

For what it's worth, on my previous DSLR (a Canon 300D) I used "focus (using the centre point) and recompose" most of the time. On my D700 and D800, I almost always move the focus point and keep the camera still. The D600's arrangement would bother me, but only because I've been used to an alternative. Some very high end cameras have had worse autofocus than either the D600 or D7100, and people seem to cope.</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>Sam. I don't mean you any disrespect with this answer. </p>

<p>You just had a long thread you started in which you asked for advice about replacing your D3100. The majority opinion on that thread, given the money constraints that you established, was that you should buy a D7100. That appears not to have been the answer you wanted to get so you started this thread. Looking at the lens set you have, and what you intend to do in the near to mid term, my answer is the same as it was in the other thread. Buy a D7100 and keep your D3100 as your backup body. </p>

<p>You are not going to see any difference in image quality between what you have now and either the D600 or D7100 in the VAST majority of images. In a very few situations the D7100 will be better and in a very few the D600 will be better. But the key is again..... you will see no difference in almost all of the photos you take.</p>

<p>So Sam you seem to have decided that you want a D600. It will cost you considerably more than the D7100 which is, by and large, a more capable camera but if you want a D600, go ahead and buy one.</p>

<p>I didn't bust your behind in the previous thread but you said this:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I do know pro's in the area and I won't lie to you, they all rock up to jobs with these fat full frame cameras etc.....I will admit I am not keen on much of their work, (i also now have freelance work for the press), but I feel prejudice at work slightly because people look toward the big cameras and not towards me despite my yelling.....In honesty, I do believe my camera is good enough to carry the jobs, and I value your thoughts.....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Refreshing honesty because you know you are suffering from the photographic equivalent of pe**s envy. Usually it is big lenses that get this going but you seem to have it bad. So I am going to share some honesty with you. I have among my stable both the D4 and the D7100. I know exactly what you mean. People do react to ginormous cameras. The D4 with a 70-200 F/2.8 hanging off of it virtually screams 'professional photographer'. Sometimes this is advantageous and sometimes not. If you are going to do PJ work sometimes you want to be in stealth mode and sometimes you want to be the center of attention. Most importantly you want to have the right camera for the job.</p>

<p>It is completely understandable that you want to be taken seriously as a professional. But remember. It is not the professionals who are looking at your equipment and making value judgments. They know the deal. They can tell by what and how you shoot whether you can walk-the-walk. As an aside....people used to ask me how I could tell the professionals from the amateurs. My answer was always, "the professional is the guy who doesn't take the flash off of his camera in the sunshine". I was standing next to a fellow newspaper guy one day who was shooting a parade with the aforesaid 70-200 2.8. One of the crowd asked him why he was using such a heavy lens. He replied, "good question....I guess because I don't have a lighter lens." One day I got ready to go to an event at a friend's house. He asked me to take a few shots of his pool party. Just a favor for a friend. I was in the car when I realized what I had done and put the D2X and the 70-200 F2.8 and 17-35 F2.8 back in the car and grabbed my D300 and 18-105. (And of course, the SB-800). </p>

<p>All of that to say that you can buy a D7100 with a grip and spend the difference on a well used 80-200 F2.8D. (You need that anyway.) Then put a cheap aftermarket grip on your D3100 with the big-gun and use your beautiful D7100 without fear that anyone will think you have a small....er......camera. </p>

<p>I hope you will have a good sense of humor about this post. Suffice it to say that the real professionals and talented enthusiasts will know exactly why you are carrying your D7100. And if they haven't used one they will not know what they are missing. I am having a bromance with my D7100. I love it and the D4 is getting jealous. But I will still take him to the rodeo. That is what he is really for after all. </p>

[john_wheeler6]

<p>A lot of great answers by a lot of contributors. Mine might be a different take<br>

1) Decide on if you need an FX system vs staying with DX because they are different tools. Some of this depends on which lenses you have too. Are they all already DX lenses or do you have some that are DX. That needs to be factored into the cost of the move as well. I would decide this first<br>

2) Unless you print very large images or do significant cropping I would invest in better lenses and better techniques before in investing in a new body to create better lenses. You could end up being disappointed. I suggest renting a D600 to see how much a difference it makes for a typical image and if you like the wiser angle of view for a given FX lens.<br>

3) Already mentions are features the D600 lacks compared to the D700. The one I care about the most is auto bracketing levels. The D600 is quite limited relatively. This is really an arbitrary limitation set by Nikon Marketing and how the enable (or not) the firmware for such features. Just product positioning. Though not always the best reference this link shows what fits well with how I see the Nikon Product line lining up in a given Market segment:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Nikon_DSLR_cameras <br>

Hope this incremental info is useful for you.</p>

 

[Michael R Freeman]

<p>Read the reply from Rick M. Then read it again. And once more. Yes, read it three times. Best advice you have been given in response to your two recent questions on essentially the same topic.</p>

<p>Or buy a D4 and be done with it. If you're going to "drink the FX Kool-Aid" without knowing why you should, you might as well go all in.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Reengaging brain rather than just discussing technical differences... Sam, your portfolio images suggest that you like the shallow depth of field look. FX will help with that, but only so much.<br />

<br />

Some of your images are taken with an 85mm at f/2. If you wanted the same effect out of an FX camera, you could use a 127mm lens (call it 135mm, which is more common unless you're zooming) at f/3. The look an 85mm at f/2 will give you on FX is the same look your current camera would give you with a 57mm lens at f/1.3; these do exist (Grays of Westminster will sell you a 58mm f/1.2 Noct-Nikkor for only £3500!), but you could get very close to the same look with a 50mm f/1.4, which is relatively affordable and wouldn't require a new camera.<br />

<br />

If you find yourself wanting to shoot at f/1.4 on FX, there's nothing you can do with a DX camera because lenses 1.5x faster aren't available (on a DX DSLR - <a href="http://www.photozone.de/sony_nex/732-slrmagic50t095">preposterous alternatives</a> do exist for some other small formats). There's no lens that can make a DX camera do what an FX camera does with a 200mm f/2. (Well, again, there <a href=" lenses, but not exactly common or practical.) But is just-over-a-stop of aperture worth the price of an FX camera - plus getting replacements for all your DX lenses - to you?<br />

<br />

On the subject of an impressive camera... it depends whom you're trying to impress. If you want a shallow depth of field and to look impressive, pick up a 5x4 large format camera, or a Hasselblad, or a Rolleiflex. They'll all take marvellous images, though doing anything digital with them other than scanning film is scarily expensive (or impossible). If you want a big, scary SLR, an F5 is good for intimidating people on the cheap (or a Pentax 645 if you want something bigger that behaves like a Nikon but isn't compatible with one). With digital, it's harder - a D2xs would cost you about £500, do roughly what your D3100 can do but a little less well, and intimidate people nicely. You might even persuade someone who knows enough to realise that the camera was discontinued in 2007 that you're using it because you like the handling.<br />

<br />

The D7100 and D600 are consumer cameras. Very good ones, but Nikon don't count them as "professional", and they're not intimidatingly big. The D700 and D800 - and to a lesser extent the D300 - are appreciably bulkier, especially with a grip on the bottom, though only the single digit Nikon DSLRs really look impressive. (I'd advise against trying to impress anyone with a battery grip on a D3100. The D3100 is <i>tiny</i> compared with something like a D800, and while there's some merit in having a conversation starter in the form of "what on earth is that?" it's not quite the same as looking pro.)<br />

<br />

If you really wanted one for self-marketing, a used D3 is currently about the same price as a D700 and would do a sterling job of intimidating people. For the shots you're taking, the D600 is probably a better (and certainly higher-resolution) camera, but if carrying a heavy camera is going to help your business more than a better camera, it would do the job. For goodness sake try one before handing over your money - I tried a D4 in a store recently, and realised I can't reach some of the controls comfortably (and I have big hands). Photographically, it doesn't make sense for you; commercially, if your clients really care, it's not my place to claim it won't.<br />

<br />

Does it really matter? My wedding was shot with someone using a Canon 5D2 - very much "prosumer", but more than good enough (even if the autofocus module is a bit iffy). In those circumstances, the pro is the person with a small bag of spare kit and with someone making sure the list of "must have" shots is done. My wife went to a photo shoot once and gave me the results as a gift; they were shot on a cheap DSLR with the kit lens, and I had to get over my snobbishness when I saw the EXIFs, but if the photographer managed to sort out the lighting and communicate with the clients, I'm not going to complain. (I'd have done a few things differently, but that's because I'm a control freak, not because of the camera.) You need to impress your clients with your portfolio and your organization skills, not your camera. (Ironically, I've been asked whether I was a pro when carrying a 150-500mm Sigma lens, which is big and somewhat phallic, but very much for consumers. When I use my 200 f/2, which actually is intended for professional - if slightly specialist - use, I only get the "what on earth is that?" response...)<br />

<br />

Besides, if you want to turn up looking like a pro, have you consider a set of studio strobes? I suspect people will ignore your camera if they see you setting up an umbrella or two. You may not need it for your style of shooting, but it may give you some creative control that a new camera wouldn't.</p><div></div>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>but I need something which is ...I guess sharper than the D3100.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Better lenses? Better technique? Better conversion/post-processing skills?</p>

<p>Used properly, and converted/post processed well, with decent lenses, there's <em>absolutely nothing</em> a D3100 can't do, sharpness wise, that a FF camera can.</p>

<p>Anyone who tells you otherwise is talking out of his hat.</p>

<p>Is <strong><a href="http://www.kazemisu.me.uk/images/moto-x/moto-x_cambois_16.jpg">this</a></strong> not sharp enough? It's from a crop camera - a Canon, too. <em>And</em> handheld.</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>Sam, </p>

<p>in what way did<a href="/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00bLt8"><strong> this</strong></a> thread - which is to all intents and purposes another reworking of the same theme being discussed here - not help?</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Keith: Very nice. :-)<br />

<br />

To clarify my "out of hat" answer, Sam: The D600 and D7100 have more pixels, which - if running out of pixels is the problem - makes them very slightly sharper over relative to the whole image, but only if the pixel count was the limiting factor. The D7100 has no AA filter, which means that, with a perfect lens on it, the data per-pixel should be slightly sharper too. The D600 has larger pixels, meaning that the output of a lens will generally be a bit sharper on it (because the contrast of detail from a lens reduces as the size of details gets smaller). However, the D3100 has larger pixels than the D7100, meaning that - if you look at the image so that the pixels are the same size, rather than so that the total image is the same size - the D3100 may actually look just as sharp as the D7100.<br />

<br />

However, you need to have absolutely everything else sharp before this is significant, and even then the resolution increase is only about 30% (and that's relative to a camera that can already make acceptable double-page-spread prints). As people have been saying, it's highly unlikely, if you're worried about sharpness, that the camera is the primary culprit. There are other things that these cameras can do for you that your D3100 can't (or can't so well), but sharpness is way down the list.<br />

<br />

Perhaps you could give an example where you think you have sharpness problems, and we may be able to do some diagnosis or provide some recommendations for you?<br />

<br />

(Apologies to the other contributors if I've been misleading; I misread the "sharpness" comment as being an expected difference between the cameras rather than a reason for upgrading.)</p>

[dan_south]

Of the four bodies mentioned in the opening post (600, 700, 3100, 7100) I have used only the D700. It was a solid camera, but I was

frustrated with the sharpness of the output and eventually sold it. Some have suggested that the anti aliasing filter in the D700 created

more than average blur. I don't know that technical reasons, but I had no hesitation in getting rid of it when the 5D2 became my main

body.

 

The D700 was superior to the 5D2 in some critical ways: especially noise, dynamic range, and weather proofing. The D700 had a more

sophisticated autofocus implementation, but while this gave the D700 more AF features, I found that the 5D2 actually gave me a higher

percentage of in focus shots in most shooting situations. I realize that we are not discussing Canon bodies here, but I want to clarify my

impression on the D700 and why I came to the eventual conclusion that it had to go.

 

I have not used the D600, so I haven't tested its image quality, weather proofing, AF, etc. Given the amazing performance of the D800, I

would guess that the D600 is similarly well engineered except for the oil spots on the sensor issue that some have mentioned. Is it an

upgrade? That's for you to decide based on the features that are most important to you.

 

The D7100 seems to have excellent image quality. Crop sensors is magnify lens imperfections, so I would expect the D600 to have slightly better image quality than the D7100, but the difference is probably minor.

[keith reeder]

<p>Hopefully it serves to emphasise that sharpness is a function of the body, the lens, the photographer <em>and </em>the way the file is converted and post-processed, Andrew - and that crop cameras are capable of <a href="http://www.kazemisu.me.uk/images/bridlington_may_2013/tree_sparrow_bempton_5.jpg">great sharpness</a> (handheld at 420mm - there's a TC on this, too).</p>

<p>The selective sharpening of the moto-x bike pic is probably a bit much for some tastes, but it's quite deliberate, as it makes the image pop a bit more - the subject stands out against the smooth background, and it's an intentional choice of "look".</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>Wow...wow ...wow shots Keith! Nice.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Dan: I believe you're right about the unusually strong low-pass filter on the D700; I find that images from mine need more sharpening than some other cameras. In addition the 5D2 has more pixels, of course, meaning that (again, if the lens and the photographer's technique are not the limiting factors) it is theoretically capable of capturing more detail. My suspicion is that the D7100's lack of low pass filter and the D600's larger sensor sites (being less taxing on the lens resolution) will cancel out to some extent in terms of their real world sharpness in comparing them - but again, only if the sensor is actually the limiting factor, and even with perfect technique and conditions it'll be quite dependent on the details of the lens behaviour. I find the D700's autofocus (as in the D7100) to be much nicer to use, and the 5D2's is even more restrictive than the D600's - but it depends what you're shooting and how you do it.<br />

<br />

For what it's worth, while we're talking Canon if Sam wants a cheap full frame body, an original Canon 5D would be a good choice; an original 1Ds would be the "impressive-looking" alternative. (Canon have been making full frame DSLRs longer than Nikon, so there are older, cheaper options.) But that would mean a move to Canon - which may or may not be a huge stumbling block if the DX lenses need replacing anyway as part of a move to FX. Would the the "image quality" be better than the D3100? Probably not. A 1Ds2 (moderately priced) would be somewhat better, but a D600 or D7100 definitely have technically better sensors. Just counting the options. (There's the Kodak DCS-14n as a "cheap" Nikon-compatible full-frame body, but it's a long way behind the handling and sensor performance of the latest models.)<br />

<br />

Keith: Very nice. I can never get them to hold still. And for that kind of subject, the pixel density of the crop sensor definitely has an advantage.<br />

<br />

Sam: I think we're going in circles until we know whether it's just "sharpness" that you're trying to get from a camera upgrade, or some other features (beyond looking "more professional"). Depending on why you're not happy with the sharpness you have now, I hope we can save you some money...</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>My suspicion is that the D7100's lack of low pass filter and the D600's larger sensor sites (being less taxing on the lens resolution) will cancel out to some extent in terms of their real world sharpness in comparing them </p>

</blockquote>

<p>That would be my guess as well having not used either body. The D7100 sample images that I have seen to date have shown impressive detail. </p>

[rick_m.]

<p>Sam, it would appear, has bought a D600. He had decided to do this one thread ago. </p>

[sam_clay]

<p>nOTE TO MODERATOR: My caps lock is on the blink !...i am NOT Shouting.</p>

<p>thanks everyone, some very helpful answers !! many thanks :) I have decided to stick with my D3100 , as someone correctly pointed out i HAVE PHOTOGRAPHERS "p**is envy !! some VERY interesting answers and helpful in a way that my knowledge is increasing by the day....so thank you.</p>

<p>:)</p>

[sam_clay]

<p>ps. I did opt for the D600 after reading some reviews but changed my mind in the end !! This time next year, I will review this thread - cheers everyone :)</p>