I was going to get the D800, however after the D600 was announced I have second thoughts, what is your take on both cameras?
I have D700 right now, I bought it when it came out. D800 has the higher resolution than the D600, but do I need 36Mpx?
both are full frame, the difference between the D800 and D600 are resolution (36Mpx vs 24Mpx). Build quality, full metal construction vs. partial metal body, AF system. The price difference is $900. I feel however that the D800 might be a little overkill as far as the resolution. This was my initial thought when D800 was announced.
I think that D700 could use a little more resolution, this way I could offer better quality prints in the higher sizes. So far I have been getting away with little up sizing.
BTW, D700 is a full frame as well, 12Mpx, previous generation.
I wanted the D700...but I couldn't swing the cost. I ended up getting a D3100.
Another photographer recently commented to me that having the larger MP basically buys freedom in editing.
If you decide to significantly change the composition, you would still have a large file after editing.
I do know about the DP review, it is a great site. I have been reading it for last 10 years. I'm not active in the forums anymore. Not enough time.
I think I will wait for a full review of D600. The thing that bothers me in D600 is the AF system, in particular the placement of the AF sensors. All are in the center of the frame.
On the other hand I have been reading a lot of complains about the D800 side AF sensor back or front focusing problems.
Another cons for the D800, at least for me would be the higher resolution. I do worry about not getting sharp pictures because of the too low shutter speed, I do not want to use a tripod every time I take a picture. The 24Mpx of D600 should be little more forgiving.
I will have to go to the store and see how they feel.
I have the D800E and have been very happy with it. I have no focusing problems, and I believe those issues were in early releases and Nikon has sorted it out now. D600 is only available for preorder, so who knows if there will be issues with it. My uncropped images can print up to 72" on FAA. Maybe that's overkill, but I think the way cameras and sensors are going, it will soon be the norm. I almost always use a tripod, so that's not an issue for me. If I need to handhold, the high ISO performance of this camera allows me to increase shutter speed without loss of image quality.
The only two downsides, as far as I can see, are the price and the size of the files. (Need big memory cards and lots of hard drive space.)
I know about cards! I used to shoot with a Canon 1Ds, which captures about 11mp and then recently started using my friend's 1DsMKIII which is about 21mp capture. I have 4-4 gig cards and never had an issue, now I have to watch what I shoot and then download as soon as possible, reformat the cards and away we go!
My friend has the big Phase One back that grabs 85mp at a time, huge files and then he'll stitch a pano together and by the time it comes out the other end of Photoshop, it's over a gig file!!!
Thoughts.............. well, both are for professional users for starters. Choosing which body is basically a simple toss up based on what your "specific" needs are. Both are aimed away from sports action as the d800 is only 4 fps and the d600 is slightly quicker at 5.5. Both offer monster MP and tremendous resolution, low light capability. Both are huge...however somehow the d600 is being advertised as "small and lightweight". It's actually larger than the gi-normous D300...which to me is a good thing. Pre-release "on-line chatter" amongst all the gizmo tekkies had one believing the d600 was no more than a d7000 with a full frame sensor. (LOL) Now that the d600 is out it's far more similar to the d800 than the d7000. d600 using the same processor as the flagship D4. D8oo has 51 AF points, compared to 39 for the d600. Unless you shoot birds in flight, racing events or NBA-NFL games, you'll have very little use for the af capabilities.
Like Lynn said @ shutter speeds.....another deciding factor. Depends on your line of work.
@ Sabastian. The D800 shutter speeds as fast as 1/8000 sec. Ummm, no need for a tripod :) D700 is quite capable of making R A Z O R sharp images in the 20x30 size, larger with pro glass. 12.3 MP is high resolution, especially Nikon megapixels.
Some great videos already are viewable on the U-toob! Dozens of new vids each day are uploaded.
31.7 oz. (900g)
1/8000 shutter speed
exposure bracketing 9 frames max
Dynamic AF Mode: 51 points max
26.8 oz. (760g)
1/4000 shutter speed
exposure bracketing 3 frames max
Dynamic AF Mode: 39 points max
Most of the other features are similar.
This summer I bought the D800 (up from the D80! and boy what a difference).
I couldn't decide between the Canon Mark 5D III and D800. The 5D has better noise control but lower resolution. It also has a faster fps. For me, resolution was more important and I figured you could do some post-processing to reduce noise if you wanted. Also, I really wanted the exposure bracketing of 9 exposures so that I could do HDR easier.
I suspect the D600 will have lower noise than the D800.
Okay, I am not trying to take control of this thread, but if you are interested, all my photos in this gallery were taken with the D800 and the Nikon AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED. Zoom in to see how great the resolution is. Some of them have been cropped.
Lynn. Maximum versatility & top quality. Yikes. The "maximum versatility" part limits your lens quality unfortunately. I'd recommend the 24-70 f/2.8 IF ED. Hard to find, and will cost $1500.00 or more. Any zoom lens such as an 18-200mm or similar (18-300) seriously limits the resolution the d600 is capable of. Matter of fact, professional quality lenses are not available in walkabouts. To pair up with a "max versatile" lens you may consider something like the D3100, or the other prosumer bodies they make available. HUGE cost $avings
Yes, unfortunately, the better the camera you have, the better the glass you must have to take full advantage of it. And good glass is expensive. I second the recommendation for the 24-70 2.8. Especially if landscapes is your "thing."
Sometimes I think that drug addiction would be less expensive than photography addiction. *sigh* LOL
I think a lens like the 24-70 is a good start, But looking at your images, I would also suggest a wide angle lens, something along the lines of the 16-35 lens Nikon offers. It looks like most of your images aer in the 24-70 range and a wider angle lens would offer more options,
When I bought my D800 I had to upgrade lenses to full frame and I agonized about the lenses. Here is what I decided. I thought of getting the standard trio 16-24, 24-70, 70-200 lenses. However, I will be shooting a lot of travel photos and figured I would be switching lenses too much between the 24-70 and 70-200 and the 70-200 is huge. I also wanted to do some macro photography. So I settled on a AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR for my walking around lens, a Tokina 16-28MM F/2.8 ATX Pro FX for landscapes/architecture and the Nikon AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED for macro. These were much cheaper than the other three I was looking at. I am thinking I won't have to buy any lenses for many years unless I want a longer zoom or a different prime. The 24-120 isn't f/2.8 but it takes great photos, is very sharp and has VR. If I was going to buy one it would be the 24-120. The other zooms I was looking at with a wider range didn't have as good a performance as the 24-120.
The DxOMark website I mentioned above is a great place to compare lenses.
See, this is where it all comes down to personal preference, and what you shoot the most. With my D7000, I shot mostly with the 18-55 kit lens. This equates roughly to the 24-70 on full frame. So that's where I put my money. If 80% of what I shoot is in that range, then that should be my best lens, right? For the other 20%, I like to shoot wildlife sometimes, but not enough to spend thousands on a lens. So I use the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR. It's not top-of-the-line, but does well for what I use it for. For wide angle, I opted for the Tokina 17-35 f/4. I looked at the 16-28 f/2.8, but didn't like the fact that you couldn't use filters with it. I sometimes like to use an ND filter or a polarizer. So I sacrificed "fast" for filter usability. I also have a 50mm prime and a 100mm macro, each of which cost around $100 because I wanted to have that ability, but it's not high on my list of priorities.
Bottom line is, look at what you do most, and put your money there. What you do once in a while can be done for less. :-)
Definitely not independently wealthy and full frame is not negotiable. I won't consider a smaller sensor and the reality is I won't be carrying a camera bag with 3 or 4 lenses--two at the most. I'm considering Nikon D600/D800 or Canon 5D Mark ii/iii (I don't want to wait until December for the new prosumer Canon).
If I go Canon then I already have a Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens zoom. The Nikon camera bodies are more economical but the lenses apparently run more so any savings are consumed by purchasing a good lens. It sounds like I'm going to be choosing between the Mark ii and Mark iii.
Thanks everyone for the info, if I have any more questions about the Canon I'll start a new thread.
Have the D800 and I LOVE it. (stepped up from a D300) - the res is great on all levels. 36 megs is very large - this may slow down some computers/programs. However, the large file also allows heavy cropping. Had to invest in quality glass (that's expensive) to get the best images. Both camera do allow the use of FX and DX lens, however, it reduces the meg count by about half when using the DX lens.Beware: the high quality camera will pick up every detail (even the unwanted ones) which will make you a better photographer in the long run. Remember there was a long wait on the D800 advance orders. (will this be the same for the D600?). I think you will be very happy with either camera - again, its personal preference.
@Harry yes the d600 is just like any other dslr and has Program, Manual, Shutter P, And Aperture Priority you just cant change the Aperture while shooting video, however you can exit live mode and change it regularly and then go back to live mode but you are limited to that specific aperture you pick while shooting video.
From my research both of these cameras have superb image quality however the d800 has a 91,000 pixel exposure metering sensor compared to the D600 with only 2,016 pixels and 12 more MP which i would think answers the best image question but a person can only really know by test shooting both cameras at the same subject and comparing the results. The Iso in the D600 is said to have slightly better Low Iso results than the D800 due to well less MP, and the main complaint on the D800 would be its file sizes that are HUGE and slow the whole editing process down and eats up your hard drive like candy. the D600 is less expensive less MP but has a faster shutter speed and aimed at the enthusiast, while the D800 and (D800E) (specificly for RAW capture) are at the Pro level and probably $800 more, which means you get more options and better technology, how much of it is needed is the real question, I seemed to get by just fine back in the day with my Pentax 35mm camera which i bought brand new in 2000 for 350 bucks so it all depends on your use for the camera and well can you afford these new cameras?
D600 versus D800: Specification highlights
•24.3MP Full-frame CMOS sensor (compared to 36.3MP CMOS)
•10.5MP DX-format crop mode (compared to 15.3MP)
•39-point AF system with 9 cross-type AF points (compared to 51-points, with 15 cross-type)
•Autofocus sensitivity down to -1EV (compared to -2EV)
•Maximum 5.5fps continuous shooting in FX mode (compared to 4fps in FX mode)
•2,016-pixel RGB TTL exposure metering sensor (compared to 91,000 pixels)
•2x SD slots (compared to CF+SD)
•No 'Power Aperture' aperture control during movie shooting (offered by D800 using Fn + Preview buttons)
•Shutter rated to 150,000 cycles (compared to 200,000 cycles)
•Magnesium-alloy top and rear, polycarbonate front-plate (D800 is full mag-alloy except flash housing)
•USB 2.0 interface (compared to USB 3.0)
Heres some food for thought while you ponder all the specifications and try to make comparative analysis of camera body's sensors capability by different manufacturers.
DXO labs has just updated their DxO mark test results of sensor scores. Yes, they actually pit medium format Hassleblads and Pentax against D SLR's. Might be surprised at the test results. The top 10 list has Nikons D800 and D800E sharing the top two spots. Right behind the D800(E) is the new D600 with an overall score of 94. A pair of medium format HB's take the next 2 positions while the Nikon D4-D3X and D3S round out the remaining D-SLR's. A Pentax 645D medium format placed #10. The highest rated Canon was at #13, the flagship 5D MKIII. Strangely enough Nikons entry level DX sensor D3200 finished ahead of the 5D MKlll.
I wonder what that means in "real life" situations"? Can an image from a #13 look different from an image from a #1? Sometimes, the science gets carried away and becomes a mathematical journey, with no real life advantage. And then throw in the glass combinations!
I'll take a look and see what's up, thanks for the info!
I'm still on the fence. I've determined that the D800 and Mark iii are outside of my comfort range budget-wise. I'm ruling out the new Canon 6D so that leaves me with the D600 with mid range lens or the Mark ii for a bit less with a top end lens. Right or wrong, I perceive that the D600 is a prosumer camera while the Mark ii is an entry level pro camera. Is there a huge difference in quality of construction? One advantage of the Canon I can see is the maximum shutter speed of 1/8000 sec versus 1/4000 sec for the Nikon. The Canon is proven while the Nikon is brand new with no track record. On the other hand the Nikon is all new technology.
Like Marcio I'm concerned with dynamic and tonal range, color sensitivity, etc. Will one perform better than the other with regards to range and sensitivity? Is one clearly better for low light/available light photography? I also imagine that the Mark ii will depreciate faster. At this point my head is spinning. Can someone help me sort through pros and cons of the Mark ii versus the Nikon D600?
Lynn, the dxo labs testing just answered all those questions. Just google DXO labs d600, and you'll get to their website and testing results. Testing results are made from an even playing field.
The perception of where the D600 falls into a "category" has been hotly contested on several camera forums I've been to. The anticipated $1500.00 price tag had folks thinking "prosumer", the reality check $2100.00 places it firmly into an affordable professional body and greatly narrowing the gap with the D800. This has bonked many people knowing it's another unnattainable item. Now the DXO mark sensor scores show the D600 clearly looking down at the rest of the world...for the time being....with the D800. Even looking down upon the flagship Nikon D4's and D3s as well as a fleet of Hasselblads and Pentax medium formats.
Is an 1/8000 shutter speed really worth turning your back on ALL that resolution and low light/high ISO performance? Might want to take a break from here (faa forums) and head over to the "Nikon Digital learning center" which is a group on flickr. Steve Simon has had his hands on the d600 recently, as well as D800/D700/D7000/D300s/D4/D3s......anyhow he has really provided some wonderful feedback from a lengthy first hand experience working with the d600.
we just bought an D800 and it cost 3000.00 and the D600 cost 2000.00 and the 800 is a portrait camera and works great ...it depends on what you are shooting ....I shoot with a D7000 ,,,,,I would by the 600 and put the extra grand into a lens ....just saying....good luck ...Steve
Lynn, this is a brand new lens that offers some really great resolution for it's price. It's not one of the Nikkor "gold ring" lenses (pro glass) however it's a substantial BANG for your $$. By it's nature, the maximum f/3.5 ap limits the creative use of the lens somewhat.....and it won't come close to exploring the full range of the D600 or D800 sensor but again it's a terrific value that offers extremely sharp images. A really wonderful mid-range alternative.
@ Rich, sooooooooooo true! NFL action under the bright lights :) Gosh, I do photoshoots for musclecar owners and one thing they LOVE is for me to capture a smoky burnout. Even at 1/1500 it freezes the violent tire rotation too much where the lack of motion blur is somewhat of a distraction.
Guys, you have been more than patient so know that your advice is helping a lot and please hang in there with me for just a little bit longer.
LOL Rich, I just picked up on your Ramen noodle comment. I'm not convinced there are enough Ramen noodles to get me into the Mark iii. However, if there were, is the Mark iii with my 24-105 zoom better than the D600 with the kit lens? Or the D600 with a Nikkor pro lens? In other words, of the following, which would you choose if cost is the controlling factor and which would you choose if quality controls. It can be assumed I would add lenses and accessories to any of the options over time.
No noodles required budget
mark ii with 24-105 zoom 1450+850=2300
D600 with 24-70 KIT zoom 2600 (AF-S NIKKOR 24–85mm f/3.5–4.5G ED VR II)
Serious quantity of ramen noodles required
D600 with 24-70 gold ring 2100+1800=3900 (AF-S NIKKOR 24–70 mm f/2.8G ED)
mark iii with 24-105 zoom 3050+850=3900
With no further input I would be leaning towards the Nikon D600. I would look to add a wide angle prime lens for confined building interiors in the near future.
There's things I like about the 5D, but it looks like this new Nikon may have a few improvements and is a year newer, sensor,etc., than the 5D.This ain't your last camera, so I would start with the Nikon, especially with the info Thomas posted about the DXO Lab results.
But, now you may have a few bucks left over to buy a used wide angle lens, to complete the kit, and I would look at the Tokina or Tamron lenses, unless somebody here has some good stuff to say about Sigma,etc.
If budget wasn't a concern, I'd go with the 5D MKIII, your existing lens and a w/a down the road. My brother, who also is a Pro Photographer has the 5D MKIII and he's happy with it.
I can here my wine glass calling from the kitchen.....
Boy, oh boy, oh boy! I love my new Nikon D800. I have been taking shots at about all ISO settings just for grins. Even at 1600 and 3200 and I'm getting excellent shots and the color is excellent at low light levels! The only down side for me is the weight of the camera with an FX lens attached to it but I'm getting accustomed to it. I try to pack it around as much as I can to build up my strength. Quite a difference from my wimpy little 4mp Sony point and shoot I've had for so many years.
Loree, "The only two downsides, as far as I can see, are the price and the size of the files. (Need big memory cards and lots of hard drive space.)"
Answer: I solved both those problems for myself. I'm spending my kids inheritance on more hard drive space and memory cards. Well not to worry, I am just kidding. But I do love my D800
Unfortunately John it's not that simple :) :) The dxo mark sensor scores are nearly identical, with the d600 showing marked improvement over the d800 in several areas especially high ISO, hand held in low light. Also it will make 4 more images over 2 seconds on continous burst fps. As a professional who needs to count "beans" the math I see from my personal perspective at very high resolution is 2200 vs 3000. That's in USA dollar bill green.
I love the d800, it's a gem....but the extra 800.00 bills can go towards a Nikkor 16-35 VR ED IF lens which is the ONLY lens (on this planet) that matches Nikkors 24-70 f/2.8 ED IF lens quality.