Going FX. D600 or D800

[Ballistics]

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...

Yeah... I really ripped him a new one. You're so melodramatic.

 

[Ballistics]

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.

Kind of a contradiction here.

I shoot 14bit Lossless compressed RAW files. If you are talking about processing in post, there's no time difference in processing.
If you are talking about processing in camera, I shot with a D600 a few nights ago, and it never occured to me that the D600 was "faster".

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.

If you match the speeds of the cards, you will not have a bottleneck.
I use CF cards that are 60MB/s - The SD equivalent is 95MB/s - They both read and write at nearly identical speeds on the D800. In fact, here's a chart of where SD and CF cards fall:

Rob Galbraith DPI: Nikon D800/D800E

The SD 95MB/s is slightly faster, and cheaper.

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.

36MP is not just about printing size. Think about resolution in the terms of cropping. The ability to crop in at 36MP is immense. In fact, you are extremely capable of cropping in @ 100% with a very sharp image.

 

[dwswager]

Loving the hate since most of what I posted was just fact.

Processing: This point was poorly worded. Both cameras use EXPEED 3 and only due to some system design differences, the D800 has about an 8-10% faster processing rate than the D600 in terms of pixels per second that the cameras can process. However, the D600 has a lot less data per image to actually process (D600 24MP, 29.2MB 14bit RAW verus the D800 36.2MP, 41.3MB 14bit RAW). Not only does a camera have to process data, it has to collect it, transfer it and store it! Doesn't matter how fast your processor or memory is if you don't have the pipelines to move the data to keep it fed.


CF verus SD Speed: There is not currently an SD card with any letter combination (HC, XC, UHS-1, etc.) on it that is as fast as the fastest CF cards. It does not matter what MB/s numbers Sandisk or Lexar puts on the face of the card. We are talking actual ability to write data onto the card. And for the friend that quoted Rob Galbraith, he agrees with me. Looking in the CF/SD speed database for the D800, the fastest CF card writes JPGs and NEFs at 62.5MB and 69MB respectively (Lexar Professional 1000X 32GB). The fastest SD card tested in this camera, coming in 24th place on the list behind 23 CF cards is the SanDisk Extreme Pro 95MB/s 8GB, performs at 37.8 MB/s and 42MB/s respectively.

Since we're name dropping, let's add Thom Hogan to the list of folks that agree (From his D800/D800E review)

Writing to Card
Not bad, with a caveat or two. With some of my more recent high-end [CF] cards I can squeak 60MBs+ out of the D800 models. That's better performance than I've gotten from my D3 cameras, which tend to top out at about 40MBs. Clearly Nikon continues to make progress here, and considering we have so much more data to move from sensor to card, that's much needed progress.

The caveats are these: (1) If you shoot Raw Primary JPEG Secondary or Backup for the second slot, the SD card is going to determine your camera's performance, and there the news ain't so hot. The fastest SD card I've got barely hits 40MBs...Solution: buy fast cards, use only Overflow.

Raise your hand if you are a D800 owner and prefer having to deal with 2 different media in your camera as opposed to just one (CF or SD). [Opinion Alert] The only thing I like about SD is that my laptop has a built in slot for it. I much prefer the speed, physical size, handling and durability of CF over SD.

AF Sensor Coverage: I stole this graphic somewhere and would like to give atribution, but can't. Anyway, does anyone really want to argue that the 51 point AF senor on the D300 doesn't cover more (higher percentage) of the smaller DX imaging sensor than the almost identical 51 point AF sensor on the D800 covers of the larger FX imaging sensor? The AF Sensors cover the same total area! Simple subtraction folks. More of a bigger imaging sensor is going to be left uncovered.
View attachment 43267

36MP is not just about printing size. Think about resolution in the terms of cropping. The ability to crop in at 36MP is immense. In fact, you are extremely capable of cropping in @ 100% with a very sharp image.

Concur and I do crop, especially sports images. But you will get better results if you move closer to the subject or use a higher magnification lens. If you only need a 10MP image and you are getting it by cropping it out of a 36MP image, that is a hell of a processing and storage penalty you are paying. Very nice to have that ability when needed, but would not recommend it as standard operating practice.

Ya know, I tell people all the time that being the smartest guy in the room isn't near as much fun as you would think it would be or as it should be, mainly because the stupid among us tend to be in charge.

 

[manaheim]

I haven't tested or researched the SD vs. CF speeds, though I can't say I'd be surprised if CF cards were faster.

That said, I have VERY rarely exceeded my buffer on the camera and found myself waiting for the cam to catch up. Probably once or twice total. The simple fact is that the camera isn't that fast anyway, and it's not exactly meant for sports photography if you know what I mean.

Would I have preferred to have one or the other? Yeah, probably. However, if you forced me to pick I probably would have chosen the SD card because it is SO much easier to work with and SO much less alarming to remove from the camera compared to CF (bent pins, anyone?) I had my D300 for years and basically NEVER removed the CF card for fear of pulling or bending a pin. With the D800 I'm popping the SD card in and out all the time. It's like blissful freedom.

Still- very interesting discussion.

 

[Derrel]

Some observations: The D600 is the Nikon equivalent of the Canon 5D Mark II; a lower-cost, lower-spec'd camera body with an AF system that's designed for people whose work does not demand wide-area AF. The 5D-II was widely,widely acclaimed for its blend of price and capability. It had plenty of megapixel count, and excellent imaging capabilities, but it WAS a lower-spec'd body, and it was missing some features. Same with today's D600...it has a highly centrally-weighted AF system, with virtually no peripheral AF points, and 39 instead of 51 AF points. The Nikon D600 is very close to Nikon's "equivalent offering" as the 5D-II, a few years later, and aimed at almost the same,exact market segment, and optimized for the same types of uses and users.

People who are unfamiliar with sports/action photography are probably unaware of the uses for off-center AF points on high speed action, but for those who do a lot of sports or action work, there are some very real advantages to having AF points that cover "most" of the frame. Buuuuut.....for people whose work is basically slow-speed stuff, where focus-and-recompose will work, then, sure, there are no issues with having only more-centrally located AF coverage.

There's not much sense in arguing with the people who just plop everything in the middle of the frame and put the camera on single-point AF. Their experience tells them that that is all they need, so that is all ANYBODY else would need. Some of those same people cannot seem to get their heads around why Nikon's top camera, the D4, has only 16MP, and why it shoots so FAST. They cannot seem to understand that different tools actually are optimized for different users, and for different "types" of shooting. They seem to think that "their" specific camera is the be-all,end-all of cameras. And that any camera that differs from "their" pet camera is somehow, inferior, and that there is no need for anything "different" than what "their" camera has.

 

[amolitor]

Nobody will ever need more than 1 AF point. Or more than 64K of RAM.

 

[TruckerDave]

Nobody will ever need more than 1 AF point. Or more than 64K of RAM.

Or a hard drive over 500mb.

 

[manaheim]

You know one thing I hate about the D800... the sound of the damned shutter.

CLANG

CLANG

CLANG

!!!

 

[deutsh]

D800E D800E D800 if you can't... then D600
And thats all.

 

[Mike_E]

Shoot more worry less.

Analyze your needs, arrange them in order of importance, match as best you can the camera that will cover those needs then buy it.

Shoot more, worry less then save the internet angst for arguing about the meaning and definition of art because a camera is going to do a job -or not- and could care less what anyone thinks about it.

 

[Derrel]

You know one thing I hate about the D800... the sound of the damned shutter.

CLANG

CLANG

CLANG

!!!

Well then, you would have absolutely HATED the Canon 20D....the loudest, tinniest-sounding shutter ever!

TING!
TING!
TING!

With the TING! sound similar to that produced by an NCAA women's softball player belting a home run with an aluminum bat...

 

[Ballistics]

Loving the hate since most of what I posted was just fact.

No. Actually you didn't. Saying that you don't need 36MP unless you are printing billboards is not a fact. Saying that an SD card will bottleneck write speeds is not a fact.

Processing: This point was poorly worded. Both cameras use EXPEED 3 and only due to some system design differences, the D800 has about an 8-10% faster processing rate than the D600 in terms of pixels per second that the cameras can process. However, the D600 has a lot less data per image to actually process (D600 24MP, 29.2MB 14bit RAW verus the D800 36.2MP, 41.3MB 14bit RAW). Not only does a camera have to process data, it has to collect it, transfer it and store it! Doesn't matter how fast your processor or memory is if you don't have the pipelines to move the data to keep it fed.

Long story short, if your computer can't handle a 40MB raw file, it's not going to handle a 30MB raw file either.

CF verus SD Speed: There is not currently an SD card with any letter combination (HC, XC, UHS-1, etc.) on it that is as fast as the fastest CF cards.

Yeah no kidding, but that's not what you initially said.

It does not matter what MB/s numbers Sandisk or Lexar puts on the face of the card. We are talking actual ability to write data onto the card. And for the friend that quoted Rob Galbraith, he agrees with me. Looking in the CF/SD speed database for the D800, the fastest CF card writes JPGs and NEFs at 62.5MB and 69MB respectively (Lexar Professional 1000X 32GB). The fastest SD card tested in this camera, coming in 24th place on the list behind 23 CF cards is the SanDisk Extreme Pro 95MB/s 8GB, performs at 37.8 MB/s and 42MB/s respectively.

And no one argued any of this. And Rob Galbraith doesn't agree with your initial post. You didn't say the fastest CF card ever. Let's backpedal more.

Since we're name dropping, let's add Thom Hogan to the list of folks that agree (From his D800/D800E review)

Writing to Card
Not bad, with a caveat or two. With some of my more recent high-end [CF] cards I can squeak 60MBs+ out of the D800 models. That's better performance than I've gotten from my D3 cameras, which tend to top out at about 40MBs. Clearly Nikon continues to make progress here, and considering we have so much more data to move from sensor to card, that's much needed progress.

The caveats are these: (1) If you shoot Raw Primary JPEG Secondary or Backup for the second slot, the SD card is going to determine your camera's performance, and there the news ain't so hot. The fastest SD card I've got barely hits 40MBs...Solution: buy fast cards, use only Overflow.

I linked empirical data, not an opinion. Here's my anecdote... an owner of the D800: With a 60MB/s CF card, I've never hit the buffer once.
So in a sense, your post from Hogan agrees with my point:

If you shoot Raw Primary JPEG Secondary or Backup for the second slot, the SD card is going to determine your camera's performance

You can match the CF cards performance with an SD card up to 42 MB/s. Which is the 60MB/s CF cards. So can the SD card bottleneck performance? Absolutely, because they don't make 1000x SD cards in the first place. So pairing a 1000x CF card with a 400x anything, whether it's a CF card or SD is going to bottleneck your performance. That's just how these things work.

AF Sensor Coverage: I stole this graphic somewhere and would like to give atribution, but can't. Anyway, does anyone really want to argue that the 51 point AF senor on the D300 doesn't cover more (higher percentage) of the smaller DX imaging sensor than the almost identical 51 point AF sensor on the D800 covers of the larger FX imaging sensor? The AF Sensors cover the same total area! Simple subtraction folks. More of a bigger imaging sensor is going to be left uncovered.

That's what I said.

36MP is not just about printing size. Think about resolution in the terms of cropping. The ability to crop in at 36MP is immense. In fact, you are extremely capable of cropping in @ 100% with a very sharp image.

Concur and I do crop, especially sports images. But you will get better results if you move closer to the subject or use a higher magnification lens.

You're introducing new (and irrelevant) arguments neither of which has anything to do with FX vs DX. This goes for any camera of any sensor size.

If you only need a 10MP image and you are getting it by cropping it out of a 36MP image, that is a hell of a processing and storage penalty you are paying.

Not really.

Ya know, I tell people all the time that being the smartest guy in the room isn't near as much fun as you would think it would be or as it should be, mainly because the stupid among us tend to be in charge.

No one is calling you stupid, don't beat yourself up about it.

 

[jake337]

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'm guessing a used D700 would be the right choice at the end of the day. Great quality. 12 mp. Around $1,300-$1,700 used.


But who knows, maybe you can distinguish the difference between images created with any of the cameras written about so far.


I sure couldn't.

 

[Derrel]

12MP full frame images versus 24 MP full-frame images....VERY easy to tell just by looking....look at a D700 portrait image and a D3x or D600 portrait file...there's very little comparison.

I shot the Canon 5D, a 12.8 MP camera for several years...the first few files I made with the D3x blew me away....HUGE difference in acuity and detail.

Greater acuity...more detail...more fine detail...the 24MP sensor size is decidedly,decidely better than the 12MP sensor. It's pretty easy to see the differences.

 

[jake337]

12MP full frame images versus 24 MP full-frame images....VERY easy to tell just by looking....look at a D700 portrait image and a D3x or D600 portrait file...there's very little comparison.

I shot the Canon 5D, a 12.8 MP camera for several years...the first few files I made with the D3x blew me away....HUGE difference in acuity and detail.

Greater acuity...more detail...more fine detail...the 24MP sensor size is decidedly,decidely better than the 12MP sensor. It's pretty easy to see the differences.

In equal print sizes standing 5-10 feet? I'm just wondering. Can you tell by just looking at a monitor or at 100%?