D600 or D800?

[Mike_E]

Thank you all for the replies. Can anyone attest for whether or not the D800E is worth the extra money? It's my understanding that Nikon has corrected the desharpening caused by an AA filter on the sensor, but it does not result in noticeably sharper images like you would find with a Leica M8 or M9, comparatively.

I haven't shot the D800E but from what I could find the difference isn't really usable unless you're really printing huge or cropping the bejesus out of it. And then proper edge sharpening brought it right up there with the E.

Anti-aliasing was important to me so I got the D800.

If you get the D800 read the manual two or three times with the camera in hand and you'll be good to go.

If you want the most out of this camera a tripod helps as much if not more than uber sharp lenses. (you still need good glass but you don't have to have the absolute top of the line)

 

[manaheim]

Thank you all for the replies. Can anyone attest for whether or not the D800E is worth the extra money? It's my understanding that Nikon has corrected the desharpening caused by an AA filter on the sensor, but it does not result in noticeably sharper images like you would find with a Leica M8 or M9, comparatively.

I haven't shot the D800E but from what I could find the difference isn't really usable unless you're really printing huge or cropping the bejesus out of it. And then proper edge sharpening brought it right up there with the E.

Anti-aliasing was important to me so I got the D800.

If you get the D800 read the manual two or three times with the camera in hand and you'll be good to go.

If you want the most out of this camera a tripod helps as much if not more than uber sharp lenses. (you still need good glass but you don't have to have the absolute top of the line)

I'm really confused. The D800E isn't usable unless you're printing big or cropping?

The D800E is just the D800 without the AA filter. The only difference is the lack of blending between the pixels to make a smoother image, which you can do easily in post processing. In every other respect they're the same, and therefore anything that would be a challenge (printing or otherwise) would be the same on both... and there's nothing unusable about either that would restrict it's usability to large prints or heavily cropped images.

 

[greybeard]

Nikon D600 vs D800 - Our Analysis
Nikon D600 vs D800 - Our Analysis

This analysis says it all. It really depends on your needs. If you have a particular need of some of the D800's unique features then it is worth the extra money.

 

[Aloicious]

I don't like snapsort, their ratings system is so wonky, its nice to look at the specs side to side, but as far as their 'which is better' ratings system, its so flawed with what it looks at, and for what it doesn't look at. it only takes into account at raw numbers, nothing else...for example, they factor in their own ranking of 'popularity' into their score, what use is that? and how does popularity indicate a better functioning camera? they also rank one body higher for a fractional ISO noise rating, but no change in the fractional dynamic range, or color depth, (not saying that its really needed, just seems odd that they'd change ratings for one and not the others), and I believe these numbers are only pulled from one source (DXOmark), which is okay, DXOMark has good info, but its only ONE source. They also weight things oddly, they have a high weight of ISO performance, and """popularity""", but no weighting for AF functionality/performance/area, nothing weighted for resolution, nothing weighted for button layout (granted, thats a personal preference, but VERY important non-the-less)...Score - Nikon D600 vs Nikon D800

really both the D600 and D800/D800E are exceptional camera bodies. I really think you'd be happy with either one. If *I* were choosing one, I'd take the D800/E...the AF gains, AF area, resolution, and button setup, etc are worth the price difference for me and what I do, and if I had to choose the standard 800 vs the E, I'd choose the E, since the benefits of the E are useful for some things that I do, I would rather have that benefit than not (I haven't noticed much of a difference in moire for what I shoot, but you may if yo have alot of things like fabric patterns, etc, so take that into account if you shoot things like that)....however, all that said, I'm not about wasting money, so although I do prefer the more expensive body, I'd buy good used or refurbished on whatever body you end up getting for the price savings. If you can, go hold each one and see which feels better to you (if you haven't already). I really don't think you'd be disappointed in the performance of either one...

 

[Aloicious]

Thank you all for the replies. Can anyone attest for whether or not the D800E is worth the extra money? It's my understanding that Nikon has corrected the desharpening caused by an AA filter on the sensor, but it does not result in noticeably sharper images like you would find with a Leica M8 or M9, comparatively.

I haven't shot the D800E but from what I could find the difference isn't really usable unless you're really printing huge or cropping the bejesus out of it. And then proper edge sharpening brought it right up there with the E.

Anti-aliasing was important to me so I got the D800.

If you get the D800 read the manual two or three times with the camera in hand and you'll be good to go.

If you want the most out of this camera a tripod helps as much if not more than uber sharp lenses. (you still need good glass but you don't have to have the absolute top of the line)

I'm really confused. The D800E isn't usable unless you're printing big or cropping?

The D800E is just the D800 without the AA filter. The only difference is the lack of blending between the pixels to make a smoother image, which you can do easily in post processing. In every other respect they're the same, and therefore anything that would be a challenge (printing or otherwise) would be the same on both... and there's nothing unusable about either that would restrict it's usability to large prints or heavily cropped images.

I believe he's saying the difference between having the AA vs not isn't really noticeable unless you're printing big or cropping...not that it isn't usable.

which I tend to agree with...to a point...though IMO how noticeable the difference is will depend a lot more on what and how you're shooting, but the crop amount and printing size does play into it.....

however I have noticed that regardless of crop or print size, I have noticed that I have had to change my processing a little bit between the E vs non-E, I am applying less 'sharpening' to the E raw files to achieve the same level of final result than I am with the non-E files. which is really saying something because I don't typically apply much sharpening to begin with. but there is definitely a difference between them.

 

[Ballistics]

Nikon D600 vs D800 - Our Analysis
Nikon D600 vs D800 - Our Analysis

This analysis says it all. It really depends on your needs. If you have a particular need of some of the D800's unique features then it is worth the extra money.

Some how the camera with the inferior features and image quality is better? Makes sense.

Snapsorts analysis is probably the last thing that "says it all".

 

[greybeard]

It is real easy to write things like "Snapsorts analysis is probably the last thing that "says it all"" and quite another to really back it up. I have found their comparisons to be pretty spot on most of the time. But, like poor old Ken Rockwell, who gets blasted constantly on this forum, get no respect either. I think both of these fine bodies have their place and the D600 is better suited to certain types of users than the d800. Much like using a bulldozer were a rototiller will do. (jmho)

 

[Ballistics]

It is real easy to write things like "Snapsorts analysis is probably the last thing that "says it all"" and quite another to really back it up.

It's just as easy to say "snapsorts analysis says it all". I don't get what your point is. You gave your opinion of snapsort, and I gave mine. Don't know how you really back up subjectivity.

The D800 has better/more features, has better image quality, but the D600 has better ISO by a tenth of a stop. Meanwhile, noise reduction software takes care of that tenth of a stop.
The D600 is $800 less. But you sacrifice a lot of features for that $800.

 

[amolitor]

Anti-aliasing isn't something you can really do right in post. In general, aliasing isn't that big of an issue for cameras at the level of a D800, the rest of the optical system will do enough low-pass filtering for you, and it's only problematic at very very specific spatial frequencies.

High frequency moire you can just turn into moosh in post, which is probably a good enough solution for those rare cases when it turns up. If you get very unlucky, though, you can wind up (in theory) with a quite low frequency moire pattern generated by a image with spatial frequencies very very close to the sampling frequency of the sensor. This won't get picked up by a "touch of softening". It's possible that Nikon has left sufficient AA in the mix to keep this from ever being an issue.

If they have NOT, however, if you truly have a completely unfiltered image placed on the sensor, the world of super-sampling opens up. In theory, again. This is something I have long been curious to find out if the newer AA-less cameras truly let you do, or if they're just doing less anti-aliasing but still enough to thwart super-sampling.

 

[Vtec44]

I own both D800 and D600, shot a wedding with both over the weekend, enjoyed both. Each has its own strength and weaknesses. It comes down to your shooting style. For me it's hard to decide but I prefer the ergonomic on my heavy D800.

 

[Aloicious]

yeah, fixing moire in post and optical aliasing are quite different...but as far as what body should be considered, it really comes down to what is being shot...if you're doing alot of fabric/fashion shots where the spacial frequencies can tend towards moire, then although you can work with moire in post, its much easier and faster to have the optical aliasing in play to begin with....

as far as the D800/e/600 goes, regardless on how many people you ask, you'll probably get a fairly even split between them since different people will have different needs. If you ask a landscape photographer, portrait photographer, and sports photographer what the most important aspect of a sensor's performance is as far as ISO, DR, or Color Depth, you'll get 3 different answers. any review or comparison (ie. snapsort, KR, DP, Thom Hogan, Cameralabs, and the list goes on) will only give you one point of view, one person's experience, one set of completely subjective results even places like snapsort that attempt to make an objective result, don't obtain really any objectivity, for the reasons I stated earlier, and more (but I don't think this is the place to derail the OP's thread about why x site is better than Y site), you need to collect them all and see them for what they each are, a piece of the review puzzle, not the whole enchilada...As you probably well know, the best way to decide is to try them each out and see what works best for you in regards to every aspect from price, to ergonomics, to functionality, etc...take a memory card to your camera store and see if they'll let you fire off a few shots with their floor models, and compare them when you get home...

as far as the 800 vs 800E, that is another topic of debate that will lead to a fairly split poll between them....since I have both the 800 and 800E, I'd be happy to take a few test pics if that is something that people would be interested in....

 

[sandollars]

I would advise you read everything here and everything else you can get your hands on. Read every review and make up your own mind. All 3 are great cameras and all 3 will give you superior results with the right lenses and talent which you can't buy. Practice, practice, practice.

Good luck on your journey!

 

[tevo]

I shoot sports as my job, but the D7000 is sufficient for what the company asks. However, I enjoy shooting sports independently as well, so a sports oriented body would be very useful. Ideally I would get a D4 but that is much too expensive, and the 600/800 have the same low light performance; I can do without the continuous frame rate. I know the D800 supposedly has a better AF system, but how would it compare to the AF of a D3 / D700?

At this point I'm leaning towards a D800 because it seems to be a more versatile camera.

 

[Aloicious]

I shoot sports as my job, but the D7000 is sufficient for what the company asks. However, I enjoy shooting sports independently as well, so a sports oriented body would be very useful. Ideally I would get a D4 but that is much too expensive, and the 600/800 have the same low light performance; I can do without the continuous frame rate. I know the D800 supposedly has a better AF system, but how would it compare to the AF of a D3 / D700?

At this point I'm leaning towards a D800 because it seems to be a more versatile camera.

I never ran into a wall with the AF on my D3s, or 800's, but the 800 does have some nice AF perks (more cross type points, being able to AF down to f8, and an edge in lower light af performance), but in all reality, I never had an issue with either IME. I suspect the D3s was improved slightly from the D3/D700, and the D800/D4 is improved from there.

 

[acollamat]

I am a D600 user but if you can stretch to D800 then go for D800, both camera is capable of capturing great image.