Going FX. D600 or D800

[deutsh]

D800E

 

[dwswager]

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.

Understood that you can match the 2 cards (albeit at the lower SD card speeds). I also understand that we have crossed over the price curves for CF and SD because of dwindling CF sales. I also understand that the buffer on both the D600 and D800 are better than that on my D300. I rarely shoot boosts of more than 6 frames. Note that other settings, specifically Active D Lighting on the D300 have a significant degradation on the FPS or continous frames the D300 can actually complete.

Note that apparently Live View and Image Preview is also affected by the slowest card in the system. So it is just not a flush the buffer thing. In real world, will you notice this as a problem? Depends how you work. I will likely use an 8GB Sandisk Extreme Pro SD card as OVERFLOW or not have an SD Card in the system. I already have plenty of fast CF.


I'm in the D600 versus D800 penalty box will lots of other folks in choosing a replacement for my D300. Both have some negatives relative to the D300 and both have some big positives, especially a lower noise sensor.

With repsect to the D800, I will most likely shoot sports in DX mode and get a 15MP JPG image and 5FPS (theoretical) out of the camera as compared to the D300 12MP image and 6FPS. I'm not a professional, so while I might miss some shots, it's not a killer. This also gives me the option of switching to FX mode when the AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II w/o or w/ mated TC-14E 1.4x or TC-20E 2.0x teleconverter is 'too much lens'. Then I will get 36MP JPG at 4FPS. For all other work, it will be FX mode in either RAW or JPG images.

 

[Ballistics]

albeit at the lower SD card speeds

It's not slower if you match the speeds. Again, they don't make 1000x SD cards.

With repsect to the D800, I will most likely shoot sports in DX mode and get a 15MP JPG image and 5FPS (theoretical) out of the camera as compared to the D300 12MP image and 6FPS. I'm not a professional, so while I might miss some shots, it's not a killer. This also gives me the option of switching to FX mode when the AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II w/o or w/ mated TC-14E 1.4x or TC-20E 2.0x teleconverter is 'too much lens'. Then I will get 36MP JPG at 4FPS. For all other work, it will be FX mode in either RAW or JPG images.

All this card speed moaning, and you plan on shooting in JPEG? Are you serious?

 

[dwswager]

It's not slower if you match the speeds. Again, they don't make 1000x SD cards.

If one matches the fastest SD Card (42Mbs) to a 42Mbs CF card, that WILL be slower than a 69Mbs CF card alone!

All this card speed moaning, and you plan on shooting in JPEG? Are you serious?

I'm not moaning, just clarifying facts about media speeds. And yes, media speed affects even JPG shooting. My current shooting is probably 70% JPG and 30% RAW. For a significant number of applications, RAW files just aren't needed. I shoot RAW when I have possible multiple target uses in mind or just don't know. There are specific occasions when I switch to RAW even when the intended image doesn't demand it if I can't control the contrast and/or color balance. Hence, when there will a significant amount of post processing on the image because I can't or don't have the facility to fix it in the shot itself.

"If the only tool you use is a hammer [RAW]; every problem looks like a nail!" Sometimes there are screws and staples to be dealt with.

I'm reminded of the people that think $10/ft speaker cable makes a difference in a 10ft run versus 18ga zip cord. Of course, these were the same people that thought using a green magic marker around the edge of their CDs made them sound better! ROTFLMAO

 

[Ballistics]

You have a habit of altering arguments and making assumptions. I didn't say anything about RAW vs Jpeg.
If JPEG is your file format of choice, then you will experience 0 issues with a 400x card.
You are talking about the speed difference of a honda civic vs a formula one car, both @ highway speeds.

In otherwords, you talk about these $500+ 1000x cards, when your file format is jpeg. It's an irrelevant argument and 1000x becomes unnecessary and overkill.
I shoot in ALL raw, and have never hit the buffer. Even in RAW, the D800 shoots at 4fps. That means, that the 1000x speed gets you an extra 3 or 4 frames over the 400x.
People will say "Oh those extra 3 frames can make the difference of getting the shot and not getting the shot". For those people, the D800 and 4fps is not for you.
If you need to motor drive for sports, then you need more than 4fps. Not to mention, when you do hit the buffer, it's about 30-40 seconds with 1000x.

Theoretically, you get an extra frame every 2 seconds in compressed raw and 2 extra frames total until you hit the buffer.

 

[dwswager]

I do not own a D600 or D800. I shoot with a D300 and I have hit the limits because of less processing power and the buffer limit.

Oddly enough, the most appropriate upgrade from a D300 is probably the D7100. If you assume MP count and lower noise as a technilogical breakthrough that comes with increasing development then the 24MP lower noise sensor of the D7100 is the upgrade. Unfortunately, I loose the 51 point AF focus sensor system and the durable body with real 10 pin PC terminal connection (Wired MC-20 Remote Release) that the Nikon bodies they designate as consumer all lack, including the D600. That is a hell of a Deal though since the D7100 is $1199 while the D300 when it was released was $2499!

Going FX then, the D600 or D800 come into play. Both give me a higher MP (and larger) lower noise sensor, but neither give me everything I already have. I loose the 51 point AF in the D600 and the 6FPS (at full resolution) in the D800. Tradeoffs suck!


Assuming all things being equal (they are not. D300 older technology and system sensor and system design differences), then this is an important specification. Not only for S/N ratiios, but also difraction limits. See all the stupid **** we can worry about.

D300 = 3.03154e-5 Sq mm per pixel
D7100 = 1.5275e-5 Sq mm per pixel
D600 = 3.68205e-5
D800 = 2.37355e-5

 

[Ballistics]

Get a D4 or a D3s then and call it a day.

 

[Mach0]

Get a D4 or a D3s then and call it a day.

I would love a d3s.

 

[greybeard]

File size should not be an issue with todays modern computers. If you HD isn't up to it, get on of these
Amazon.com: WD Elements 2 TB USB 2.0 Desktop External Hard Drive: Electronics

 

[manaheim]

File size should not be an issue with todays modern computers. If you HD isn't up to it, get on of these
Amazon.com: WD Elements 2 TB USB 2.0 Desktop External Hard Drive: Electronics

The file size also means more processing power required, though. And it's not that modern computers can't handle it... it's a question of whether or not YOUR machine is modern.

 

[dwswager]

Get a D4 or a D3s then and call it a day.

Actually, now that you mention it, I'm thinking a D7100 (Wonder if Really Right Stuff makes an L Plate for it) now and adding a D800s or D600s later. Considering the D7000 to D7100 step went from 39 point AF to 51 point AF sensor, maybe the D600 will grow up to be the camera I need. A D3 12.1 MP FX sensor would just not do it.


I have 3 Western Digital Red 3 TB Hard Drives in a DrivePool on a Windows 2011 Home Server. Go big or go home! Amazon.com: WD Red 3 TB NAS Hard Drive: 3.5 Inch, SATA III, 64 MB Cache - WD30EFRX: Computers & Accessories

 

[sandollars]

What I would do: Get the D600 and take the extra money and invest in a good piece of glass. The glass will last forever. The camera is a very nice camera, but will eventually age. Based on what you said you do with it, the D600 will do all that and more. JMHO..

 

[dwswager]

What I would do: Get the D600 and take the extra money and invest in a good piece of glass. The glass will last forever. The camera is a very nice camera, but will eventually age. Based on what you said you do with it, the D600 will do all that and more. JMHO..

I generally agree Glass over Camera, but in this age with the film built into the camera that isn't always true. I'm already shooting the AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II. On a DX body that is getting the sweet center and 105 - 300mm. I don't see a 200-400mm f/4 anywhere in my future. I might eventually be able to saddle up to an AF-S 80-400mm even though it is slower. And a DX mode of 10MP is a small step down in resolution from the D300 though the pixels will be of better quality. Plus, I loose AF Sensor coverage with the 39 point system versus the 51 point system in the D300 and D7100.

My real decision at this point is A) Keep Shooting the D300 and see what pops up next, B) Get the D800 now and shoot sports in DX mode living with slower frame rate or C) Get the D7100 now and add to it the D800, D800s or something else later. I just might find that the D7100 is good enough for a reasonable amount of time. Hate loosing the build quality and changing camera operation paradigms going from D300 to D7100, but it is a relatively inexpensive option.

The knock on the D7100 verus D300 is the slower total burst (buffer size) of 33 versus 43 (JPEG Fine, Large). But considering I shoot sports in JPEG Fine Large, Active D-Lighting on and JPEG Compression set to Quality, I only get a total burst out of the D300 of 6 shots now, even though it has a theoretical maximum of 43! That is usually enough. I guess the question for the D7100 guys is with those options set, what does the viewfinder state is the maximum total burst? I'm expecting the much faster processor in the D7100 might actually make it faster. As I said, my D300 reports [r06]