nikon d600 or d700?? decisions!

[480sparky]

How about a Nikon D600 AND a D7000?

 

[astroNikon]

How about a Nikon D600 AND a D7000?

Why?
I have those two and I barely use the d7000 anymore.
but with the upcoming soccer season and my son on a larger field ... I may need something longer than the d600 and 80-200.
I'll be running a test when practice starts.
I kinda wish I had the d7100 24mp for more cropping.

 

[480sparky]

How about a Nikon D600 AND a D7000?

Why?
I have those two and I barely use the d7000 anymore.
but with the upcoming soccer season and my son on a larger field ... I may need something longer than the d600 and 80-200.
I'll be running a test when practice starts.
I kinda wish I had the d7100 24mp for more cropping.

I've got a pair of D600, and still got the 7100 to stick on the Tamzooka.

 

[astroNikon]

For the OP .. here's a great price on a 80-200/2.8 two ring lens from one TPF member
though no where in the thread were lenses mentioned
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...ikon-80-200-2-8-2-touch-zoom.html#post3273851

Of course the newer 70-200/2.8 AF-S lenses are better but cost multiple times what that one costs.

 

[Braineack]

I've got a pair of D600, and still got the 7100 to stick on the Tamzooka.

I REALLY want that lens...

 

[astroNikon]

did the OP ever make a decision ?

 

[MOREGONE]

Went I got my D600 I kept my D90 as backup. Not too long ago I was able to sell the D90 and get a D700 Gripped for my 2nd body.

I rarely use the D700. I don't care for the layout and the image quality has nothing on the D600. The D700 IQ is like the D90 IMO with less noise at higher ISO's, say 1600-3200. But that was just less noise, it is not as if there was more information. With the D600 it is quite amazing how much information is retained. Using the shadows slider in LR with D600 can do amazing things, something D700 cannot.

I am a pretty stout guy and just find the D700 unnecessarily heavy. I don't do much photography out in the elements or else I would maybe appreciate the robustness of the build. But for me, the D600 is great.

 

[JerryPH]

Another vote for D700.

First off, I have cameras with better video capabilities than any dSLR (not that it is that hard. Most dSLR video is mediocre and the D600's video is nothing special). If I want video I will use a camera designed for video.

The D700 is much better built, that goes without saying. Adding the grip and the D3 battery gives you 2500+ 12-bit RAW files on a single charge. The AF is not just a little better, it is far superior giving faster focus acquisition and that just gets better and better the darker it gets. 51 focus points vs 39 for the D600. I cannot recall the last time I missed focus shooting in dark conditions with the D700. When playing with the D600, I got a surprising amount of lens hunting as the camera struggled to focus on what I needed, something the D700 never did for me.

High ISO is better. I can shoot with confidence at ISO 6400 all day long. The dirtier higher ISO also cleans up a little better than the D600. That means that there is more detail in higher ISO with 3rd party noise reduction with the D700 than the D600. I have shot weddings with the D700 at ISO 25,600 and with minor cleaning in LR 4 and had great results. I could not equal those results on a D600. It's almost like it has problems with chroma noise... quite a lot more than the D700.

The D700 has an integrated flash. In an emergency, you have a flash, but even better when NOT in an emergency, you have a commander that can control up to a full 3 groups of flashes in manual and/or TTL using Nikon's CLS. With the D600 you have to add an on camera flash with commander capabilities adding several hundred dollars cost to your kit.

The D700 has an integrated focus motor. The D600 I believe does not. This means that if there is no focus motor in the lens, that lens cannot focus automatically. Lenses like Nikon's Nifty-50 that work wonderfully on the D700 are merely a manual focus lens on the D600.

Greater range of shutter speeds. The D600 maxes out at 1/4000 while the D700 maxes out at 1/8000th like most of Nikon's cameras.

12.1MP. Smaller file sizes. Who *really* prints photos at sizes above 16X20 inches on a regular basis? The D700 has given me excellent 30X40 inch prints and downloading 500 files from a 16gb card happens quite fast. I get barely 250 files on a 16gb card with the D600. That means I would need to pay for a bigger card to hold the same number of pics. I also need bigger hard drives to hold an equal amount of files. Not a biggie, but it is another extra cost.

If all one does is post to the web, heck a good 2mp camera is all that one needs, anything above that is overkill. That 12.1mp size is perfect for any use with no real disadvantage.

They say that the D600 has 2 stops more dynamic range. That's nice... show me a picture where that advantage is VISIBLE. For 99% of photographers, this difference is not easily visible on anything under a 16X20, and even at that size, you'd better have some real good eyes to spot the differences while pixel peeping.

A couple people complain about the layout of the camera... the D700 has the same layout as the higher end Nikon cameras, the D600 has the same layout as the other lower end Nikon cameras. I make changes more intuitively on the D700, but then again, I also have and own a D4, and can switch back and forth without thought. This is not a good or bad point, it is simply desire to learn a new layout and preferences.

Build issues. The D600 has been having oil on the sensor issues for months. Even after cleaning several times it often comes back. This points to a build issue, not a cleanliness issue. The D700 came out with no major issues and has been rock solid from day 1.

Where the D600 comes off as a nice consumer camera, the D700 is a true PROsumer camera, and I feel the D700 is always going to be the better camera. If all you want is video and bigger files with no real advantage over the D700, the D600 is the tool to get.

That's my 2 cents.

 

[colnago1331]

Ummm, the D600 has a built-in flash that can be used as a commander for Nikon's CLS/AWS. It also has an AF motor so it does not require AF-S lenses. Those are just two of the areas where you're completely off.

 

[shadowlands]

Another vote for D700.

First off, I have cameras with better video capabilities than any dSLR (not that it is that hard. Most dSLR video is mediocre and the D600's video is nothing special). If I want video I will use a camera designed for video.

The D700 is much better built, that goes without saying. Adding the grip and the D3 battery gives you 2500+ 12-bit RAW files on a single charge. The AF is not just a little better, it is far superior giving faster focus acquisition and that just gets better and better the darker it gets. 51 focus points vs 39 for the D600. I cannot recall the last time I missed focus shooting in dark conditions with the D700. When playing with the D600, I got a surprising amount of lens hunting as the camera struggled to focus on what I needed, something the D700 never did for me.

High ISO is better. I can shoot with confidence at ISO 6400 all day long. The dirtier higher ISO also cleans up a little better than the D600. That means that there is more detail in higher ISO with 3rd party noise reduction with the D700 than the D600. I have shot weddings with the D700 at ISO 25,600 and with minor cleaning in LR 4 and had great results. I could not equal those results on a D600. It's almost like it has problems with chroma noise... quite a lot more than the D700.

The D700 has an integrated flash. In an emergency, you have a flash, but even better when NOT in an emergency, you have a commander that can control up to a full 3 groups of flashes in manual and/or TTL using Nikon's CLS. With the D600 you have to add an on camera flash with commander capabilities adding several hundred dollars cost to your kit.

The D700 has an integrated focus motor. The D600 I believe does not. This means that if there is no focus motor in the lens, that lens cannot focus automatically. Lenses like Nikon's Nifty-50 that work wonderfully on the D700 are merely a manual focus lens on the D600.

Greater range of shutter speeds. The D600 maxes out at 1/4000 while the D700 maxes out at 1/8000th like most of Nikon's cameras.

12.1MP. Smaller file sizes. Who *really* prints photos at sizes above 16X20 inches on a regular basis? The D700 has given me excellent 30X40 inch prints and downloading 500 files from a 16gb card happens quite fast. I get barely 250 files on a 16gb card with the D600. That means I would need to pay for a bigger card to hold the same number of pics. I also need bigger hard drives to hold an equal amount of files. Not a biggie, but it is another extra cost.

If all one does is post to the web, heck a good 2mp camera is all that one needs, anything above that is overkill. That 12.1mp size is perfect for any use with no real disadvantage.

They say that the D600 has 2 stops more dynamic range. That's nice... show me a picture where that advantage is VISIBLE. For 99% of photographers, this difference is not easily visible on anything under a 16X20, and even at that size, you'd better have some real good eyes to spot the differences while pixel peeping.

A couple people complain about the layout of the camera... the D700 has the same layout as the higher end Nikon cameras, the D600 has the same layout as the other lower end Nikon cameras. I make changes more intuitively on the D700, but then again, I also have and own a D4, and can switch back and forth without thought. This is not a good or bad point, it is simply desire to learn a new layout and preferences.

Build issues. The D600 has been having oil on the sensor issues for months. Even after cleaning several times it often comes back. This points to a build issue, not a cleanliness issue. The D700 came out with no major issues and has been rock solid from day 1.

Where the D600 comes off as a nice consumer camera, the D700 is a true PROsumer camera, and I feel the D700 is always going to be the better camera. If all you want is video and bigger files with no real advantage over the D700, the D600 is the tool to get.

That's my 2 cents.

Amen!!! My feelings exactly!!! I held the D600 and it reminded me of my former D90. No thanks. D300/D700 build spoiled me. And the buffer, etc.... 8 frames per second, etc...

 

[ruifo]

The D700 has an integrated focus motor. The D600 I believe does not.

The D600 has an AF motor built in. Even the D300 and the D7100 (DX sensors) have it too.

 

[Braineack]

Ummm, the D600 has a built-in flash that can be used as a commander for Nikon's CLS/AWS. It also has an AF motor so it does not require AF-S lenses. Those are just two of the areas where you're completely off.

just two of the many.

 

[astroNikon]

fyi ... 24mp comes in handy if you have to crop alot .. not just web printing.

Dynamic range comes in handy when you start pulling out shadows and reducing glare. I've never tested a d700 vs d600 but there's quite a difference between my d7000 crop and d600

my d600 & d7000 DX camera both have focus motors built in. Matter of fact, I *only* have AF-D screw-focus lenses for my d600 and they all automatically focus just fine.

I've compensated for not having 1/8000 by using ISO 50 & 1/4000

But still, I like both the d700 and d600.
I wish I could have both.

 

[colnago1331]

Ummm, the D600 has a built-in flash that can be used as a commander for Nikon's CLS/AWS. It also has an AF motor so it does not require AF-S lenses. Those are just two of the areas where you're completely off.

just two of the many.

Yeah. I didn't really feel like pointing out everything.....