Going FX. D600 or D800

[Derrel]

I want to be able to crop way into models pupil and clearly see her brain cells

Ummmmm...you are likely to meet with extreme disappointment dude...

 

[amolitor]

Models HAVE brain cells. They're just not connected together very well.

 

[Ballistics]

D600 is suitable for nearly every photo need for nearly every photog.

Yeah, if you alter your shooting style to work around all of the compromises.
The D800 is about $800 more than the D600. I shoot 14 bit lossless compressed RAW, and I get about 200 shots on an 8gb card (41MB avg)
So the file sizes are really a non-issue. Even in the uncrompressed raw (I would assume 75MB/file), storage is cheap and if you are paying 3k for a camera,
the extra $150 for a new 1TB HD shouldn't really matter.

The 1/4000 shutter speed is a big hit for those that shoot @ f/2.8 or wider outside in the sun.
In certain conditions you're going to need that 1/8000.

The flash sync speed is another head scratcher. Weakens strobes by a third.

If video is your thing (I'm just getting into it), the fact that the aperture is controllable DURING a video shoot is huge.

The size of the focus area is what turned me away. I was willing to workaround the other things, but then I saw a demonstration
of the focus in action, I couldn't imagine using it. D800 is smaller than the D7000, but the D600 is sooo tiny. I like to ride the outside of the frame
with my focus points, and the D600 would kill my shooting style completely.

They both take photos, and the outcome is excellent on both sides. However, there are some strong limitations when buying a D600, and if you can live with them,
then I would definitely advise going with the D600. I almost bought it. Sooo close to buying it. But that damn focus area...

 

[Chad]

It's too bad Nikon didn't see fit to copy Canon's concept of sRAW and mRAW, or small, and medium-sized raw files as an option in the D800. If you want 24MP full-frame raws from a Nikon, your choices are the D600 or the D3x. I do not see the logic behind buying the D800, and shooting it in DX crop mode just to get a 16-megapixel image.

By all accounts, the new D7100 and its 24MP sensor have excellent,excellent imaging performance. According to people who have owned BOTH the D7000 and the new D7100, the D7100 is really a step-UP, and not just an iteration of the D7000. The D7100 is,as I understand it, uses an entirely new, different generation of sensor than the one used in the D7000. That is to say, the D7100's sensor is of the same generation as the ones used in the D600 and D800. I dunno...I have been looking at some D7100 tests lately,and it seems like a REALLY good imager.

But, back to the D600 vs D800 connundrum...I'd be tempted to say that either would do the job for you. Either body.

I to have been battling between the D600 and D800. I wanted an FX sensor and if the D800 had a 24MP sensor I would have bought one weeks ago. Instead, since I was not 100% on either I decided to purchase the D7100 (currently have a D90) and wait a couple years to see what happens with Nikon FX bodies. Plus I have the new 80-400mm and with the Dx body it becomes a 'cheaper' 600mm lens.

I also have met two other photographers who also bought the D7100 and will wait a couple years to see what happens.

 

[Ballistics]

It's too bad Nikon didn't see fit to copy Canon's concept of sRAW and mRAW, or small, and medium-sized raw files as an option in the D800. If you want 24MP full-frame raws from a Nikon, your choices are the D600 or the D3x. I do not see the logic behind buying the D800, and shooting it in DX crop mode just to get a 16-megapixel image.

By all accounts, the new D7100 and its 24MP sensor have excellent,excellent imaging performance. According to people who have owned BOTH the D7000 and the new D7100, the D7100 is really a step-UP, and not just an iteration of the D7000. The D7100 is,as I understand it, uses an entirely new, different generation of sensor than the one used in the D7000. That is to say, the D7100's sensor is of the same generation as the ones used in the D600 and D800. I dunno...I have been looking at some D7100 tests lately,and it seems like a REALLY good imager.

But, back to the D600 vs D800 connundrum...I'd be tempted to say that either would do the job for you. Either body.

I to have been battling between the D600 and D800. I wanted an FX sensor and if the D800 had a 24MP sensor I would have bought one weeks ago. Instead, since I was not 100% on either I decided to purchase the D7100 (currently have a D90) and wait a couple years to see what happens with Nikon FX bodies. Plus I have the new 80-400mm and with the Dx body it becomes a 'cheaper' 600mm lens.

I also have met two other photographers who also bought the D7100 and will wait a couple years to see what happens.

Don't forget that there's a DX mode on both FX bodies.

 

[Mach0]

Yeah, if you alter your shooting style to work around all of the compromises.
The D800 is about $800 more than the D600. I shoot 14 bit lossless compressed RAW, and I get about 200 shots on an 8gb card (41MB avg)
So the file sizes are really a non-issue. Even in the uncrompressed raw (I would assume 75MB/file), storage is cheap and if you are paying 3k for a camera,
the extra $150 for a new 1TB HD shouldn't really matter.

The 1/4000 shutter speed is a big hit for those that shoot @ f/2.8 or wider outside in the sun.
In certain conditions you're going to need that 1/8000.

The flash sync speed is another head scratcher. Weakens strobes by a third.

If video is your thing (I'm just getting into it), the fact that the aperture is controllable DURING a video shoot is huge.

The size of the focus area is what turned me away. I was willing to workaround the other things, but then I saw a demonstration
of the focus in action, I couldn't imagine using it. D800 is smaller than the D7000, but the D600 is sooo tiny. I like to ride the outside of the frame
with my focus points, and the D600 would kill my shooting style completely.

They both take photos, and the outcome is excellent on both sides. However, there are some strong limitations when buying a D600, and if you can live with them,
then I would definitely advise going with the D600. I almost bought it. Sooo close to buying it. But that damn focus area...

D800 smaller than d7000?

 

[Ballistics]

Yes. The actual area is smaller.

 

[pony]

D600 is suitable for nearly every photo need for nearly every photog.

Yeah, if you alter your shooting style to work around all of the compromises.
The D800 is about $800 more than the D600. I shoot 14 bit lossless compressed RAW, and I get about 200 shots on an 8gb card (41MB avg)
So the file sizes are really a non-issue. Even in the uncrompressed raw (I would assume 75MB/file), storage is cheap and if you are paying 3k for a camera,
the extra $150 for a new 1TB HD shouldn't really matter.

The 1/4000 shutter speed is a big hit for those that shoot @ f/2.8 or wider outside in the sun.
In certain conditions you're going to need that 1/8000.

The flash sync speed is another head scratcher. Weakens strobes by a third.

If video is your thing (I'm just getting into it), the fact that the aperture is controllable DURING a video shoot is huge.

The size of the focus area is what turned me away. I was willing to workaround the other things, but then I saw a demonstration
of the focus in action, I couldn't imagine using it. D800 is smaller than the D7000, but the D600 is sooo tiny. I like to ride the outside of the frame
with my focus points, and the D600 would kill my shooting style completely.

They both take photos, and the outcome is excellent on both sides. However, there are some strong limitations when buying a D600, and if you can live with them,
then I would definitely advise going with the D600. I almost bought it. Sooo close to buying it. But that damn focus area...

Is 14bit as good as straight up RAW?
I shoot primes, as wide open as possible, and outside as much as possible...mildly concerned about SS.

I am thinking I should rent the 2 bodies and see what I think. I am having a VERY difficult time deciding. I know what I want but neither fits the bill 100%


ETA: I don't use a flash, and video is not important.

And Ballistics, my understanding is that the focus area is the same, but takes up less room on FX. I played with both bodies at the big box and I agree the focus could be awkward on the D600. I frequently focus and recompose....so not sure if that would drive me nuts or not

 

[cosmonaut]

I would go with the D800. It could possibly last you a lifetime with the image quality you would get. Memory is cheap, computers are getting faster and in ten years the 36 mpix files will seem small. My computer handles them fine unless I am working on panos.

 

[480sparky]

Is 14bit as good as straight up RAW?
......

14 bit IS raw.

 

[pony]

Is 14bit as good as straight up RAW?
......

14 bit IS raw.

Right. But it's as good as uncompressed, etc?
It's truly lossless?
Thanks!

 

[Chad]

It's too bad Nikon didn't see fit to copy Canon's concept of sRAW and mRAW, or small, and medium-sized raw files as an option in the D800. If you want 24MP full-frame raws from a Nikon, your choices are the D600 or the D3x. I do not see the logic behind buying the D800, and shooting it in DX crop mode just to get a 16-megapixel image.

By all accounts, the new D7100 and its 24MP sensor have excellent,excellent imaging performance. According to people who have owned BOTH the D7000 and the new D7100, the D7100 is really a step-UP, and not just an iteration of the D7000. The D7100 is,as I understand it, uses an entirely new, different generation of sensor than the one used in the D7000. That is to say, the D7100's sensor is of the same generation as the ones used in the D600 and D800. I dunno...I have been looking at some D7100 tests lately,and it seems like a REALLY good imager.

But, back to the D600 vs D800 connundrum...I'd be tempted to say that either would do the job for you. Either body.

I to have been battling between the D600 and D800. I wanted an FX sensor and if the D800 had a 24MP sensor I would have bought one weeks ago. Instead, since I was not 100% on either I decided to purchase the D7100 (currently have a D90) and wait a couple years to see what happens with Nikon FX bodies. Plus I have the new 80-400mm and with the Dx body it becomes a 'cheaper' 600mm lens.

I also have met two other photographers who also bought the D7100 and will wait a couple years to see what happens.

Don't forget that there's a DX mode on both FX bodies.

I understand there is a crop mode on FX bodies, I didn't buy one because the D600 has major oil issues and the D800 files IMO are to big

 

[480sparky]

Right. But it's as good as uncompressed, etc?
It's truly lossless?
Thanks!

There's 14bit compressed and 14 bit uncompressed. Most of the time you'll never notice the difference.

 

[pony]

There's 14bit compressed and 14 bit uncompressed. Most of the time you'll never notice the difference.

Interesting. This makes the D800 a bit more appealing.
Can I be a real pest and ask, in which cases *might* you notice a difference?

 

[480sparky]

Interesting. This makes the D800 a bit more appealing.

Why? 14 bit is 14 bit, whether it comes from a D600 or a D800. Bit depth is the same for both.

Can I be a real pest and ask, in which cases *might* you notice a difference?

If you do a lot of heavy-handed editing. If all you do is slight adjustments and changes, you'll never know the difference.