D800 or D600?

[mattbikeboy]

My trusty D700 is getting long in the tooth with nearly 370,000 shots on its ticker and I looking for a new body. Ideally the D4 would fit my shooting (but not fiscal) needs.

Why the D700 has been a great camera:
1) Sensor, focus and processor of the D3 in a smaller package
2) With addition of the grip and EN-El4 battery -- the D700 was nearly as fast (continuous frame capture rate) as the D3 and could shoot several thousand images on the big battery
3) Great image quality.
4) Good low light ability.
5) Good price.

D700 weaknesses:
1) Rubber bits fall off with time and heavy use
2) 12 megapixels -- a little low by today's standards.
3) No Video

D800 strengths:
1) Amazing 36mp image quality
2) Low light abilities similar or slightly better than the D700 (according to DXo Labs)
3) HD Video
4) Focus and processing with D4 bits
5) 1/8000 shutter speed
6) Good price
7) Build Quality

D800 weaknesses:
1) Slow continuous frame rate (not addressable with fast battery and grip).
2) Grip & bigger battery are pretty pricey.

D600 Stregnths:
1) Great Image Quality
2) Slightly faster (than D800) continuous frame capture rate
3) Price

D600 Weaknesses:
1) lower flash sync 1/200 speed
2) Slower fastest shutter speed 1/4000 sec
3) Magnesium and plastic body construction. (I remember my D80 and the creakiness when the grip was attached)

.
So I'm leaning towards the D800... even though it is slower than my D700. I think the up spec over the D600 would be worth it in the long run. But would half the continuous frame rate drive me nuts -- maybe when mountain bike racers are flying past me at 25 mph. But maybe it'll force me to be more judicious in my shot selection.

Ideally I would love it if Nikon would take the D600 sensor and drop it into a D800 chassis, increase the frame rate to 8 fps (with grip and battery) and sell it for $2499. Then do the same thing thing with the sensor from the D7100 (so I could pick up a solid D300s replacement).

What do you nikon shooters think?

Mbb

[Photo-John]

For you? D600, hands-down. The D800 is overkill for the vast majority of photographers. It's really a specialty camera, in my opinion. The D600 image quality is beautiful and you know the faster frame rate really does matter. It's about timing, not choosing the right image - with action sports, anyway.

Have you considered getting a used D3S? The differences between the D3S and the D4 are honestly pretty negligible, unless you're doing video.

[Franglais]

I shoot a lot less than you. I like to keep things as simple as possible so I don't make mistakes. So..

- You have a D700 already and you seem to have had a D300s. These are both medium pro bodies with the same user interface. The replacement for both of these bodies is the D800.

- The D600 is an advanced-amateur body with the user interface of the D7000. I've tried it and too many things are different compared with the D300.

I don't get the slow-continuous-shooting thing. The D800 is rated at 4fps with the standard battery, the D700 at 5 fps and the D800 with battery pack or in DX mode is 6 fps. Have I missed something?

I don't get why you need a D300s replacement. The D800 with a DX lens is almost like a 16MPix D300. What's missing?

[Photo-John]

I don't get the slow-continuous-shooting thing. The D800 is rated at 4fps with the standard battery, the D700 at 5 fps and the D800 with battery pack or in DX mode is 6 fps. Have I missed something?

I forgot about the battery pack speed increase, Charles. Thanks for pointing that out. I still think 36-megapixels is overkill. Hell, I think 24-megapixels is overkill and so do a lot of other editorial photographers I know. I also think the D600 feels pretty damn good, even if it is an "advanced-amateur body." But then again, I don't care about how a camera is classified as much as a lot of other people. I care a lot more about what it can do.

[mattbikeboy]

I'm leaning towards the D800 with a grip and fast battery for a couple reasons. First it is considered a pro body (which I need to keep updated for my NPS status). Second the flash sync and higher shutter speed are nice when I shoot races wide open with a fill flash. And finally like Charles said the D800 gets pretty fast with the proper setup. Everything else, the D800 is awesome and probably major overkill. I was thinking about finding a nice used D3s for sports and events shooting (that is still an option).

I'm not in a huge hurry, unless the D700 dies (it's shutter is randomly sticking). I'll be watching for a refurbished D4 as well. I'm hoping to pick something up in August. Maybe I'll have saved enough for a D4 by then.

Mbb

[Franglais]

The D800 is just Nikon's latest 2nd-level pro body, replacing the D700. If I am careful then yes I can get tremendous detail out of it but mostly I just bash away carelessly the way I always have done.

What is most important to me is the layout of the controls and the eight user preset menus. I have everything set up the same on all my DSLR's for a particular situation. I just need to pick the right user presets and shoot.

The D600 only has two user preset menus and the RX100 has none. Whenever I want to do something specific on the RX100 I spend minutes fiddling with it trying to find the options I need in the menus.

That reminds me - next weekend I have an air display. I must do a menu with DX mode already set for when the aircraft are in flight.

[armando_m]

....Whenever I want to do something specific on the RX100 I spend minutes fiddling with it trying to find the options I need in the menus.....

off topic: sony menus was one of my reason to get rid of the nex5n, then AF performance, then the kit lens

on topic:
One can not under estimate the controls on the camera, I went o a trip for 3 weeks with a different camera than my D800, for 1 day I rented a D800 and immediately could configure it as I use it and have a successful shooting experience

[GB1]

I have the D700 and I haven't thought seriously about upgrading to the 800, for as you nicely pointed out, the 700 does so many things right, even if the 12 MP sensor seems a tad low by today's standards - especially if you print!

36 MP vs 24 MP; really depends what you need your images for. Large prints need large pixel counts, but I've also heard photographers *complain* that this reveals the limitations of many lenses and, hilariously, how good a photographer you really are, for of the obviousness of blur in an image that big (due to camera shake, etc.)

1/200 flash synch would hurt me.. it's 1/250 on the D700 with external strobes and 1/320 for on-camera flash, but I've found you can't trust the 1/250 ... I see a graduated black 'fade' encroaching on one side of the image. I have to shoot 1/200 to be safe, and if a model's jumping around every little bit of extra speed helps.

You could prob live with the slower FPS, but you need to research the number of continuous shots both can take before the buffers back up. That's happening w/ my 700 on occasion. The shutter button will not fire until it catches up (!)

G

[Greg McCary]

GB I use the D800 and I would not want to work with dozens of pictures say from a model session. My a99s 24 mpxl files are much easier to deal with, I have 6 terabytes of storage and memory is cheap. I use my Sony or paid jobs where I have to shoot 100s of pictures.
As quickly as computer's improve I think you will think nothing of it in five years. We ain't getting any younger and I think full frame has gotten to the point a newer model could last you the rest of your life without needed anymore image quality.
I think the biggest improvement you will notice will be in dynamic range. If I were you despite the file size the D800 would be my choice. Keep the D700 when you need to deal with lots of pictures and migrate to the D800 as technology improves.

[Franglais]

I was at an air show this weekend. For the in-flight displays I was using a 70-300 with the D800 in DX mode i.e: 16 Mpix with an equivalent of a 450mm. It worked really well. I don't think I quite managed to do 6 frames/second (RAW) but the overall experience was very much like shooting with the D300. Or better - the D300 with 18-200 had more difficulty keeping focus on the aircraft..

The D600 also has DX mode but you only get about 11MPix. OK that's enough but I still like to have more so that I can crop.

[ricardo77]

All I wanted was an upgrade to the D700. The D700 was a commercial mistake for Nikon as it was a professionally built camera that offered the same image quality as a camera that cost twice as much.


Nikon were not going to make that mistake again, so they bought out two cameras,D600 and D800 that were flawed. The D600 has an amateur body, 2nd rate focusing and spots on sensor, the D800 has ridiculously huge raw file sizes, a green tinted back screen and lots of blurry photos if you don't use fast shutters or a tripod.

The D700 was not flawed in any way for a camera of its time.

Imagine, if Nikon had built a camera combining all the best aspects of the D600 and D800 it would have been so good, no-one would ever have needed to buy another camera ever again. Hmm, that would not have been good for business !

The fact of the matter is that Nikon do not have a lightweight, professionally built, relatively high resolution all rounder for weddings, events, action photos etc, and I don't need or want a huge, heavy D4 please.

So much for 'choice.' Ever feel you've been cheated.

[Franglais]

All I wanted was an upgrade to the D700. The D700 was a commercial mistake for Nikon as it was a professionally built camera that offered the same image quality as a camera that cost twice as much.


Nikon were not going to make that mistake again, so they bought out two cameras,D600 and D800 that were flawed. The D600 has an amateur body, 2nd rate focusing and spots on sensor, the D800 has ridiculously huge raw file sizes, a green tinted back screen and lots of blurry photos if you don't use fast shutters or a tripod.

The D700 was not flawed in any way for a camera of its time.

Imagine, if Nikon had built a camera combining all the best aspects of the D600 and D800 it would have been so good, no-one would ever have needed to buy another camera ever again. Hmm, that would not have been good for business !

The fact of the matter is that Nikon do not have a lightweight, professionally built, relatively high resolution all rounder for weddings, events, action photos etc, and I don't need or want a huge, heavy D4 please.

So much for 'choice.' Ever feel you've been cheated.

It sounds like you've never used a D800. The tint on the LCD (it was yellow) was fixed months ago in a patch, you don't get "blurry photos" with the D800 if you don't use the full resolution, you get something that looks great. You need at least 20Mpix in today's market to be competetive. Just this afternoon I was in a shooting with a professional with a D300 and he said with 12Mpix you just can't make a big print that looks good enough to sell for 500 Euros.

The D700 had a 92% viewfinder. Nice camera but that killed it for me.

[Photo-John]

Just this afternoon I was in a shooting with a professional with a D300 and he said with 12Mpix you just can't make a big print that looks good enough to sell for 500 Euros.

I disagree with that. It does depend somewhat on the subject. But it's more about how you set up the file than it is about the image resolution. I guarantee I can make make big prints that look good from a full-frame 12-megapixel camera like the D3S or D700. I even know a bunch of sports pros who've held onto their D700's because Nikon hasn't come out with anything comparable. In that sense, I agree with ricardo77. For sports photographers, Nikon has no middle ground now - it's the D4 or nothing. And a lot of pros and semi-pros just can't justify the expense of a D4.

[Franglais]

I told him that at normal viewing distances you couldn't tell the difference between a 12Mpix print and a 36Mpix one. But he says that buyers are now looking more closely at the prints. And you can't ask top prices for something that isn't the best.

Things are changing. The new photo club in the village has an A0 printer. That means a print the size of a table. You start off by noticing the print when you come in the doorway then you move in closer to look at the detail. If you can see pixels then the effect is ruined.

[ricardo77]

I disagree with that. It does depend somewhat on the subject. But it's more about how you set up the file than it is about the image resolution. I guarantee I can make make big prints that look good from a full-frame 12-megapixel camera like the D3S or D700. I even know a bunch of sports pros who've held onto their D700's because Nikon hasn't come out with anything comparable. In that sense, I agree with ricardo77. For sports photographers, Nikon has no middle ground now - it's the D4 or nothing. And a lot of pros and semi-pros just can't justify the expense of a D4.

Thanks for agreeing with me John. It's not even a question of the money in relation to the D4. I don't want to use such a heavy camera. I often use two cameras for weddings so if I had one or two D4's around my neck that would not be good. Neither the D600 nor the D800 are 'practical' options for professional photography.

[Franglais]

Thanks for agreeing with me John. It's not even a question of the money in relation to the D4. I don't want to use such a heavy camera. I often use two cameras for weddings so if I had one or two D4's around my neck that would not be good. Neither the D600 nor the D800 are 'practical' options for professional photography.

The D800 is the same size and weight as the D700. What's wrong with it for weddings? Don't say "the file size" that's just a question of having a more powerful computer.

I don't think that the D700 stole any sales from the D3. I think that when it came out everybody that was likely to buy a D3 had already done so. People bought it as a second body or else it was D300 owners moving to FX.

Right now there might be manufacturing capacity in Japan for a "lower cost" pro body. The demand for the D4 and D800 has been satisfied. Lots of people are asking for a D400 but that line is usually made in Thailand, where the production lines are probably taken with the D610.