Going FX. D600 or D800

[manaheim]

Here's another thread on the same subject.

Yeah this appears to be the next thread that will appear at least 2x a week...

 

[manaheim]

Harddrive/SD/CF card memory is so cheap and plentiful nowadays, and the Apple iMac rocks at processing it. I like the 36, actually 56 would suit me fine too....step it up, NIKON I want to be able to crop way into models pupil and clearly see her brain cells

models have brain cells?
I kid I kid!

I guess I was confused. I was hoping there was some way to shoot at lower resolution without shooting in DX mode. This is an area I am completely uneducated because I have never encountered this situation.

I have a D7000 and have become pretty good at cleaning the sensor. It's not the end of the world, but there is nothing more annoying than noticing spots in the sky half way through an outdoor session. I can hear the clock ticking when I imagine all the extra time in post processing :/

The only reason I am not considering the D7100 is that I shoot pretty much only primes. I do all the newborn and small child session inside and on location during the cold months (which are plentiful in Chicago). I LOVE my 50mm and 85mm. Many times I really wish I had the extra room the FX would give me!

I am still undecided. I do some large prints, but nothing that requires 36mp...but it would be lovely to be able to crop...
And without the potential spatter issues I really think the D600 would be a great fit for me...

Blah! When are we due for a new FX? I would love a lower mp d800

That's the thing with the D800. It is NOT a camera you use casually. For example, YES, hard drive space is cheap, but I just took 250GIG of pictures over three days and was like "Whoa, where did all my hard drive space go? Oh... right. Stupid camera!"

When I bought my D800, I wound up replacing my desktop system, buying SSD, putting a local 2TB FAST hard disk in the system, and have been considering ways to amp up my server (where I store all my images). and even considering replacing my switch so I can trunc ports and get more bandwidth.

The D800 is an incredible camera. I'm pleased with it, but every time I pick it up I feel like I've picked up a loaded weapon.

To this day I wish they had come out with a D700 replacement at like 18MP... MAYBE 24. The D600 is SORT of that, but not quite. There really still is a gap there, IMO. That said, if the D600 had come out before the D800, I probably would have purchased that.

 

[480sparky]

........ For example, YES, hard drive space is cheap, but I just took 250GIG of pictures over three days and was like "Whoa, where did all my hard drive space go? Oh... right. Stupid camera!"..........

One big reason I didn't go with the D800.

 

[pony]

Yep and yep. I *can* manage the space, but really didn't want to. I really wanted the D700 replacement to be perfect. Instead they split it into 2 not-so-perfect cameras...
Anyhow, I am 1000 shots into the new D600 and no spots. Hopefully I got a good one. Focuses nicely, even in low light. I focus/recompose, so the smaller AF area doesn't bother me. Gripped with an 85mm it is a manageable size for me.
So far so good. Hoping the weather gets better here some day so I can get out and really put it to the test. My last concern is the max shutter speed of 4000...we shall see

I am IN LOVE with FX. I can see the whole picture, it is amazing! And I can use my 50 and 85 indoors without feeling like I'm backed into a corner or all up in people's faces. Love love love!
Thanks again for everything. So far I am quite happy

 

[Mach0]

Yep and yep. I *can* manage the space, but really didn't want to. I really wanted the D700 replacement to be perfect. Instead they split it into 2 not-so-perfect cameras...
Anyhow, I am 1000 shots into the new D600 and no spots. Hopefully I got a good one. Focuses nicely, even in low light. I focus/recompose, so the smaller AF area doesn't bother me. Gripped with an 85mm it is a manageable size for me.
So far so good. Hoping the weather gets better here some day so I can get out and really put it to the test. My last concern is the max shutter speed of 4000...we shall see

I am IN LOVE with FX. I can see the whole picture, it is amazing! And I can use my 50 and 85 indoors without feeling like I'm backed into a corner or all up in people's faces. Love love love!
Thanks again for everything. So far I am quite happy

Congrats!

 

[480sparky]

Yep and yep. I *can* manage the space, but really didn't want to. I really wanted the D700 replacement to be perfect. Instead they split it into 2 not-so-perfect cameras...
Anyhow, I am 1000 shots into the new D600 and no spots. Hopefully I got a good one. Focuses nicely, even in low light. I focus/recompose, so the smaller AF area doesn't bother me. Gripped with an 85mm it is a manageable size for me.
So far so good. Hoping the weather gets better here some day so I can get out and really put it to the test. My last concern is the max shutter speed of 4000...we shall see

I am IN LOVE with FX. I can see the whole picture, it is amazing! And I can use my 50 and 85 indoors without feeling like I'm backed into a corner or all up in people's faces. Love love love!
Thanks again for everything. So far I am quite happy

Ah, c'mon.... open up and tell us how you really feel!

 

[pony]

Ah, c'mon.... open up and tell us how you really feel!

 

[Derrel]

Yep and yep. I *can* manage the space, but really didn't want to. I really wanted the D700 replacement to be perfect. Instead they split it into 2 not-so-perfect cameras...
Anyhow, I am 1000 shots into the new D600 and no spots. Hopefully I got a good one. Focuses nicely, even in low light. I focus/recompose, so the smaller AF area doesn't bother me. Gripped with an 85mm it is a manageable size for me.
So far so good. Hoping the weather gets better here some day so I can get out and really put it to the test. My last concern is the max shutter speed of 4000...we shall see

I am IN LOVE with FX. I can see the whole picture, it is amazing! And I can use my 50 and 85 indoors without feeling like I'm backed into a corner or all up in people's faces. Love love love!
Thanks again for everything. So far I am quite happy

You can buy the perfect D700 replacement for $3,000 to $3,500...it's called the D3x.

 

[pony]

You can buy the perfect D700 replacement for $3,000 to $3,500...it's called the D3x.

???
Last I checked all the D3 and the D4 were WAAYYYYY out of my budget

 

[Derrel]

Harddrive/SD/CF card memory is so cheap and plentiful nowadays, and the Apple iMac rocks at processing it. I like the 36, actually 56 would suit me fine too....step it up, NIKON I want to be able to crop way into models pupil and clearly see her brain cells

models have brain cells?
I kid I kid!

I guess I was confused. I was hoping there was some way to shoot at lower resolution without shooting in DX mode. This is an area I am completely uneducated because I have never encountered this situation.

I have a D7000 and have become pretty good at cleaning the sensor. It's not the end of the world, but there is nothing more annoying than noticing spots in the sky half way through an outdoor session. I can hear the clock ticking when I imagine all the extra time in post processing :/

The only reason I am not considering the D7100 is that I shoot pretty much only primes. I do all the newborn and small child session inside and on location during the cold months (which are plentiful in Chicago). I LOVE my 50mm and 85mm. Many times I really wish I had the extra room the FX would give me!

I am still undecided. I do some large prints, but nothing that requires 36mp...but it would be lovely to be able to crop...
And without the potential spatter issues I really think the D600 would be a great fit for me...

Blah! When are we due for a new FX? I would love a lower mp d800

Well, crack open the wallet. What you want costs $2,000 or more. It's unlikely we will see a LOWER-MP count D800 series body...you seem to be wishing for something that actually does exist, but which you just do not want to pay for. 24 MP is available in FX in two bodies from Nikon. D600 and D3x.

 

[pony]

If I had $7000 to spare I would absolutely do it!
I actually shot a friends D4 and that was pretty sweet. In my price range it was the 600 or the 800

 

[dwswager]

Yes. The actual area is smaller.

Theoretically, this is the issue for me between the D600 and D800. I shoot a lot of softball (basketball and soccer) with a D300. I'm usually on the last 3 columns of AF sensors for batting photos so the AF sensor coverage of either body is really inadequate! Maybe, I'll learn how to use the focus lock button now! Crappy Facebook Photo Attached.




In the real world, however, it will probably turn out to be a non issue. I will either be forced to crop heavily with a FX body or put it in DX mode to get what I want. I normally shoot with an AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII (w/ and w/o a TC-14EIII Teleconverter). Hence either the subject will be smaller and moved closer to the middle of the frame anyway on FX or in DX mode, I suspect the sensors will cover just about what the D300 does, at least on the D800.

BTW, the goal for the camera designers should be at least 80% coverage of the imaging sensor with the AF sensor in both vertical and horizontal directions. IMHO!

Oh, and before everyone goes ape telling me to just use a DX body, I also do landscape, close up and portraiture. I also want to be able to control DOF better. I so miss the ability to pop a subject easily with the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 at f2.8 - f/4 I got from the larger imaging area of 35mm. You just can do it as well or easy on the DX size sensors. I can blur a background pretty well, but not make it melt away!

 

[dwswager]

I'm a D300 shooter since it was introduced. My Lenses include (20mm f/2.8, 28-70 f/2.8, 85mm f/1.4, 70-200 f/2.8 VRII (TC-14E, TC-20E), 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6). I'm in the D600 or D800 penalty box with a lot of other people. The super small AF Sensor coverage of the D600 is what has me holding back on jumping all over it. Here is my take on the choice.

D800 is SLOW...4fps vs 5fps, but in processing it is slightly faster than D600, but with a much larger pixel count it ends up being slower to get the job done.

D800 is much more demanding camera. It is going to want better lenses, better technique and better thought. This is releated to the high pixel count creating diffraction and moire and generally taxing the lens resolving power and highlighting lens flaws like bad edge to edge sharpness or light falloff in the corners.

D800 has mixed media. 2 CF slots would have been preferable because they are faster generally than SD. If you shoot with them in anything other than 'overflow', the SD will slow the camera down. The D600 has consistent media, but SD. But there will usually be less data to write anyway.

36MP is overkill for anyone not making posters or billboards. Or if you shoot controlled situations that require exceptional detail and fine edge sharpness. That said, D800 is basically the first DSLR that gives you everthing film did and more.

D600 has tiny AF sensor coverage, especially if you are coming from a DX format camera like the D300s. All FX cameras have small coverage compared to a comparable DX because the AF sensors are covering the same physical area, but with a bigger sensor to cover it just doesn't cover as much.

Both cameras seem to have some QC issues. The D800's look like it can/has been fixed with firmware updates. The D600 has the oil throwing issue that seems to be unfixable at this point.

The D600 has the two U1 and U2 programmable settings dial positions making it easy to go back and forth between a complete set of settings. The D800 is saddled with the same 'settings banks' as other Pro/ProSumer cameras.

D800 has pro options for remote release and flash (and pro prices for those assessories) while D600 has the consumer options and a different wired release terminal.

Video is not my thing, but the D800 has better video functions like controllable apeture and raw HDMI though it seems to lack a 720p 30fps option. Not sure why.

 

[Ballistics]

dwswager, there is so much misinformation in your post, I don't even know where to begin.

 

[Derrel]

dwswager, there is so much misinformation in your post, I don't even know where to begin.

Well, why not take a bit of time to refute or reply to his comments? I myself understood all of his points, except the first one, which was a bit unclear [unclear RE the term 'processing'--not sure if he meant in-camera buffer and image processing or computer processing time?], and I thought that MOST ALL of what dswagger said made perfect sense...but then, I have 12 years of Nikon D-slr use under my belt, and have owned a lot of different camera, both crop-sensor and full-frame. I'm pretty aware of the differences in having a 51-point AF system that covers the smaller APS-C frame, or a 12-point wide-area system like the D2-series had on 1.5x and 2.0x, and also am familiar with "centrally-weighted" AF systems that were MIGRATED FROM CROP bodies, like the Canon 5D I and II were. ANd I am familiar with the 51-point AF array in the D3x...it still leaves a LOT of frame area un-covered by AF. The D600 is even worse!!!

I dunno...dswagger's points were those of a D300 user who moved to the D600...I'm not sure how his "D300 user's take" can be filled with so much misinformation that it's just simply too much for a young, energetic poster like you to take on and rip him a new a&&hole over...I mean, c'mon....let's see you pound him into a blood spot on the pavement...