D600 or D800?

[molested_cow]

Personally, i'd get a used d700. They're averaging around $1500 around my part of the world anyway... You get a full frame sensor, but with the build quality and control layout of a professional grade camera. Tests i've seen on the web, seems it's not a 'huge' difference in image quality between it and a d600. Use the leftover cash you would've dropped on the new camera for nice lenses.

I disagree. I have a D700, and for landscape and portrait wise like the OP mentioned as his primary purpose, the 12mp resolution isn't good enough. Not saying that he cannot make big prints out of it, but in my experience(and I shoot a lot of landscape), the 12mp size just doesn't give me the level of details I want in many cases. I'd think the D800 will be a landscape photographer's wet dream. Even the D600 will probably help pick up a ton more details.

Otherwise, the D700 is probably the most versatile and affordable FX body if you exclude video. If there's anything that is stopping me from going for a D600 now, it will be the auto bracketing option and the overall usability of the camera.

 

[cgipson1]

The D800 shoots very well using the relatively cheap 50 and 85mm 1.8 AFD lenses as it does with the also relatively cheap 70-300 AFS VR G IF ED. it is a myth that you need to dump your glass and buy new to use it. The D800 is a truly ground breaking camera, and we've found no-one who actually owns one that has anything but good things to say about it. As to the Nikon lens list - what in all honesty would you expect Nikon to do they want your money....

hahaha... you must not be as picky as I am about IQ! Primes are Primes... yes, it will shoot those pretty well! The 70-300? Great lens for the money!! But I wasn't happy with it on the D800... not even close to my 70-200!

So do you actually own a D800? Or are you just Hearsaying?

 

[cgipson1]

Besides the d800's astonishing megapixel count it doesn't have that many advantages over the d600.

Says you. The D600 is an artificially gimped product aimed at entry level buyers who are gaga for FX. There's no explanation for Nikon limiting the sync speed, shutter speed, variable aperture during video, auto-bracketed set to 3 exposures rather than 9 like every other FX body, and other differences that currently escape me...other than they needed to have some clear distinction between the D600 and its big brother who costs a full grand more. There are a great many people (myself included) who won't even consider the D600 because of how Nikon decided to forcibly limit its features.

That said, if you're just an amateur or enthusiast who wants a nice camera, it's probably the best bang for the buck. Certainly better than the comparable options available from the other major brands.

yep.. D600 is a nice camera, but it is aimed at entry level FX users.... they left out a lot of the goodies, to keep the price low (most of which Noobs would never use anyway!).

 

[MK3Brent]

I don't know about others, but the shooting mode selector wheel drives me insane on the D600.
If you're not used to the legacy selector wheels, this may not even bother you.

If it were between the 800 and 600, I'd go 800 and never look back.

 

[Lipoly]

As for the 70-300 AF-S, you and I must have different definitions of "very well" if you think it works well on the D800.

It most certainly isn't a myth that it takes the best glass to fully utilize the D800. It's simple physics. If the design of a lens doesn't provide the resolving power and sharpness, the sensor acts in a way akin to downsampling in post production. The camera doesn't have data for every pixel of the sensor, so it makes a best guess that results in a soft looking image.

Can you explain this a bit more? Under what circumstances do you see this issue...is it only when tightly cropped, or printing very large prints?

It makes sense that to take full advantage of the D800's resolution you will need a very sharp lens (just like anything, you need to minimize the "bottleneck"...in the case of a high resolution sensor it would be the lens), but I don't see how it could be worse than on a lower MP sensor...only that you are not realizing the full benefit of the sensor. Are the images actually inherently worse on the D800 w/a lens like the 70-300?

To put it another way, if you take a picture w/a D600 and D800 and crop to where they display the same framed image (so the D800 image would contain far more pixels)...are you saying the D800 would have be less sharp/have less detail? Or are you just saying that the D800 image is not living up to it's potential vs. the D600 w/that lens?

 

[kns]

Yes we own a D800 - and our opinions stand....

 

[cgipson1]

Yes we own a D800 - and our opinions stand....

Well... if you ever try a 70-200 2.8 VRII, you will see an obvious difference..... and you will see what I mean.

 

[Lipoly]

Yes we own a D800 - and our opinions stand....

Well... if you ever try a 70-200 2.8 VRII, you will see an obvious difference..... and you will see what I mean.

I don't think anyone doubts that, but wouldn't the same be true if using the D600? The way this thread reads is using a lens like the 70-300 on the D800 would produce pictures inferior to the D600 using the same lens...I just don't understand how that would be true.

 

[mergetrio]

BTW, I'm in no position to buy 70-200 2.8 VRII to really appreciate D800's prowess. Still, the discussion around this is intriguing.

 

[StandingBear1983]

cgipson1 you get better pictures with the 70-200 then the 70-300 because its a better lens, NOT because of the body its on...i'm almost sure that the lens 'not good enough' thing is a well made marketing trick of Nikon that folks will spend much more money when they buy the D800...i would get the D800 but if you don't know the difference and your asking us i don't you'll use the extra features...but its a future proof camera, as well as a fine peace of machinery.

 

[cgipson1]

cgipson1 you get better pictures with the 70-200 then the 70-300 because its a better lens, NOT because of the body its on...i'm almost sure that the lens 'not good enough' thing is a well made marketing trick of Nikon that folks will spend much more money when they buy the D800...i would get the D800 but if you don't know the difference and your asking us i don't you'll use the extra features...but its a future proof camera, as well as a fine peace of machinery.

The difference is this: I consider the images from the 70-200 acceptable on the D800.... whereas the images from the 70-300 and some other lenses I have used had less than acceptable IQ on the D800 just due to the resolution. This did not occur on bodies that had fewer megapixels. This is based on visual comparison of the images....

The 70-200 IQ is acceptable on every body I have used it on.... (To me... someone else might not be as picky)
the 70-300 IQ is acceptable on my D7000... but not the D800... there is a noticeable difference in the quality (yes.. mostly when pixel peeping, or printing large)

It is a very subjective thing, I suspect... since I lack the tools to actually measure it in a way that would give hard data. I have does massive crops on D800 images shot with the 70-200.... that were not possible with the other lenses, as they lacked the ability to give the same detail. This was not as noticeable a difference on the D7000.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...l-size-100-crop-70-200-2-8-vrii-handheld.html

 

[amolitor]

Any imaging system will have a weakest link. Each component degrades the image to a greater or lesser degree.

If you use a less-good lens on a D800, you will still get better images than they will produce on a lesser sensor, they just won't be much better. They will also be substantially less good than the D800 could produce. These new very high pixel count sensors mostly ensure that something else in the system will be the weakest link -- probably the lens. Previous generations of sensors were generally the weakest link when paired with anything but the cheapest lenses from the manufacturer.

Thus, the D800 is a substantial change in DSLR-format digital work -- the sensor has for the first time of any importance, ceased to be the weakest link in the imaging chain.

You should still get (slightly) better images with a crap lens and a D800 than the same crap lens and a previous generation body/sensor.

 

[Lipoly]

You should still get (slightly) better images with a crap lens and a D800 than the same crap lens and a previous generation body/sensor.

That is what I was thinking, thanks.

cgipson1, that is a pretty fantastic crop!
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/members/101937.html

 

[slow231]

Besides the d800's astonishing megapixel count it doesn't have that many advantages over the d600.

Says you. The D600 is an artificially gimped product aimed at entry level buyers who are gaga for FX. There's no explanation for Nikon limiting the sync speed, shutter speed, variable aperture during video, auto-bracketed set to 3 exposures rather than 9 like every other FX body, and other differences that currently escape me...other than they needed to have some clear distinction between the D600 and its big brother who costs a full grand more. There are a great many people (myself included) who won't even consider the D600 because of how Nikon decided to forcibly limit its features.

That said, if you're just an amateur or enthusiast who wants a nice camera, it's probably the best bang for the buck. Certainly better than the comparable options available from the other major brands.

dunno what's up with the aperture during video, but (and correct me if i'm wrong) doesn't sync speed and shutter speed have everything to do with curtain speed? on the d600 with the larger sensor in the small body, i can definitely see there being a slower curtain speed (with respect to the sensor size). especially if they are using the same/similar curtain mechanism as in the d7000. the curtain speed may also be limited due to the higher rated shutter actuation numbers that nikon went for. In any case, slower curtain speed most definitely affects your fastest flash sync speed. and if for instance there is a limit on the smallest possible front vs. rear curtain distance (which for various reasons would make a lot of sense), the curtain speed definitely directly affects the fastest shutter speed. so I wouldn't be so quick to cry purposeful marketing handicap, there seem to be some very plausible physical explanations for these limitations on the D600.

as far bracketing, with the dynamic range of these newer sensors you have to push pretty far in the +/- EV to really require a separate exposure (shooting raw). in my experience when doing HDR shots, you really need to go +/- ~2.0 EV before you start to pick up a significant amount of info that you couldn't pull from a 0 EV shot (again talking raw). 5 bracket exposure puts you at +/- 4 EV, which for 99.9% of scenes is probably not too useful, and/or would start to run into other limitations (like min shutter speed hand-held). but I do agree that this seems like just a software issue that they could have included.

As far as the OP, i'm in the same boat. I actually prefer the smaller body of the d600 (it fits in my bag better lol) and the files don't bog down my computer. but i've put a few k shots through a d600, and i'm not a big fan of the AF. for the money I would hope for something much more accurate than what I have on my d7000. I also have the glass to support the d800, and the crop that cgipson posted is oh so tempting!

 

[mergetrio]

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...l-size-100-crop-70-200-2-8-vrii-handheld.html

Impressive!