Let's say you have a budget of about $2,500 which will get you a used D3 (about 40,000 exposures) or a new D600 with battery grip. Which is the better choice?
Or let's say you have a budget $3,500 which will get you a used D3x or a D800 with battery grip. Which is the better choice?
Here is another interesting comparison: Choose between a new D3x for $8,000 or a new D600 for one forth the price. Or a well used D3x and a new D600 at half the price. Both have 24mp FX sensors. Which is the better choice?
Has anyone moved from a D3 or D3x to a D600 and can compare them?
I have been reading Thom Hogan's review of the D600 as well as his D600 Guide Book in which he points out the many improvements in IQ of the D600 over prior generations. Thom generally takes the position that newer technology trumps robust D3 build since the D7000/D600 less robust build is sufficient for any reasonable use if you are careful. KR, in his usual entertaining overstatements calls the D600 "Nikon's best digital camera ever, at any price" even though he prefers the ergonomics of the new Canons.
Once the D600 dust/oil issues are sorted out will the D600 be the best "bang for the buck" in FX? Better than any used D3 iteration choice? What do you think? I am using my D600 now to form my own opinion. At this point I still am irritated by the smaller coverage of the AF area and the sensor dust but those irritations may pass once I get use to the focus and recompose technique again (we all used it with those split rangefinder focus screens in the past, didn't we?) and frequent sensor cleaning.