Custom Search
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 3.4K All Categories
- 34 Nikon Z lenses
- 77 Nikon Z cameras
- 1.4K Nikon DSLR cameras
- 11 Df
- 237 D6x0/D7x0/D8x0
- 27 D300/D300s/D500
- 29 D3x00
- 45 D3/D4/D5
- 31 D5x00
- 94 D90/D7x00
- 387 Nikon Lenses
- 9 Videos, Nikon et. al.
- 52 Nikon 1
- 18 Nikon Film Cameras
- 56 Nikon Flashes
- 25 Nikon Compact Cameras
- 48 Nikon Software
- 26 Nikon Deals
- 767 General Discussions
- 49 Gear Reviews
- 182 Other Manufacturers
- 105 Fun & Weird
- 128 Photo-a-day
In this Discussion
Who's Online (0)
Decided to (possibly) go FX! Help?
racheldistad
Posts: 36Member
Hi, basically it would be great, if someone, anyone could explain the main pros and cons of both the d600 and d800.. I'm leaning towards saving for the d800, as the price difference between them in the UK isn't that much. I'd like a camera that will age better than my current d3100, meaning I'd like to invest on
Y if its worth it, and a camera that I can have for the next 3/4+ years. I'm also open to lens or other camera body suggestions, any help is appreciated
Y if its worth it, and a camera that I can have for the next 3/4+ years. I'm also open to lens or other camera body suggestions, any help is appreciated
Disclaimer: This site has no affiliation with Nikon Corporation or any of its subsidiary.
Disclosure: [NR] is sponsored by displaying advertising banners and links.
All trademarks and brands belong to their respective owners.
Want to advertise on NikonRumors.com? Contact [NR].
Copyright © 2008-2017 NikonRumors.com.
See our Privacy Policy.
Disclosure: [NR] is sponsored by displaying advertising banners and links.
All trademarks and brands belong to their respective owners.
Want to advertise on NikonRumors.com? Contact [NR].
Copyright © 2008-2017 NikonRumors.com.
See our Privacy Policy.
Comments
Generally, the D800 tends to cater to advanced enthusiasts vs. the D600 which I think is designed to target 'transitioners' such as you. But that doesn't mean you should get it over the D800(e).
If you're trying to take photography as far as you can, then spend the extra money and get the D800.
If you're content with a great FX camera that will do, likely, 99% of what you want to do, get the D600 and spend the cash saved on better or more FX glass.
/queue other people chiming in saying basically the same thing different ways...
... And no time to use them.
Can't comment on a D600, I have never used one, but by all reports, the focusing does not seem as good as the the D800
You need the get used to some new controls, especially Auto ISO which the D800 handles very well
re lenses
Start with the 24 -120 f 4 it is difficult to beat
if you need something wider also get the 16 -35 f 4
something longer the new 80- 400, expensive but worth every penny
for maco the 105 f 2.8 is the answer
for unavailable light the 24 f 1.4
some will now tell you to forget zooms and get a set of primes
O - if have not already got one, you will need get a new computer ( i7 at least 2 Tb harddrive and lots of RAM) and Light room 4. Also shoot RAW, if you want to get the best out of your D800
for flash the SB 910
And I doubt, if the 24/1.4 can help against unavailable light
A friend of mine was also asking "do you think I should get a D600?" and got at least a D7100, is very happy about it and can benefit of all DX lenses instead of getting new FX glass.
I got my D7000 maybe three years ago and because I needed fast glass, there was often the situation to buy FX because of f/1.4 and (more likely) I didn't know at the time I bought the lens that very soon an equally good with f/1.8 would be released. It was more coincidence, but I tried to get FX glass if possible. When I made this step to FX I could start immediately and realised, the D800 is a very different world with tons of settings and not much information in the manual, which of these should be set how. It's good for a learning process, but it can be frustrating because the cam shows each bit of lack of technique. If you master them, the results are really sharp but the learning curve is steeper than I experienced the step from Pentax to Nikon.
Main disadvantages of the D800: relatively slow, very large file sizes, more expensive
Main advantages of the D600: faster fps, manageable file sizes, lighter & smaller, less expensive
Main disadvantages of the D600: AF performance in low light, 1/4000th shutter speed
Which one is more suitable for you depends on what you usually shoot.
If you shoot a lot of events, street photography, HDR bracketing, sports, kids, pets -- anything that requires lots of frames in short order -- then the D600 is faster and more manageable, especially if you don't want to spend much time post-processing. Its 24mp resolution is more than enough for 99% of situations (and maybe already too large for some situations). The D600 is also a bit more travel friendly (less memory cards to pack, smaller & lighter size, etc.)
If you're more into portraits, studio work, low-light photography, and have ample time to post-process to get the highest quality from every single pixel then D800 might be the better choice -- assuming you have top lenses and willing to put in the technical effort to get the highest quality (using a tripod, remote shutter release, etc.)
If you're more into photojournalism, weddings, etc., then other cameras might be better (such as the D4).
Both the D600 and the D800 will produce superb image quality. If you want a versatile camera that wont slow you down during or after the shoot then the D600 might be perfect. If you want an ultra-serious camera and can commit to the process then consider the D800/e.
I tend to shoot in low light landscape photography using a tripod and a remote. Another thing I'm looking at is flashes, if it helps, I always shoot RAW.
Thanks for the answers everyone
it has 39 point auofocus, but they are all grouped in the centre, so it may as well have 9 points for all the good it does. on the FX sensor, it needs them more spread out. a la d800. its like they used a DX autofocus system in it or something ....
also the lack of a second thumb button on the back for auto focus really bugs me. the d600 only has an ae button. i like two buttons there, boooo nikon.
its very annoying because the d600 could have been so excellent with some very minor additions. but of course they want to give reasons for people to pay the extra for the d800.
its a big price difference .... but i know which i would choose.
however, lenses are of course, more important. it wouldnt hurt to collect lenes first, and in that time we might see a d400, or some other new thingy. fx lenses will work on your d3100 (i think?) there are always lots of things to buy, for landscape work, filters, tripod, shutter cable etc ...
what are the pictures that you want to take that the d3100 cant manage?
i have a d700, and since i dont need video right now, i am not tempted by either the d600 or d800, i am happy waiting to see what comes next from nikon, either in the form of a d400 or a d900 or whatever it may be
@mikep: even 51 point AF can be sometimes not enough as they are pretty far away from the frame's border. But one can work around them. Btw, the D7100 has 51 AF points. At a lower price.
@sevencrossing: "unavailable" is the same as not exisiting, no light at all, like "the D400 is unavailable yet"
Basically, stop looking purely at specs, and consider what will give you the best results for your money. If you want a better body and glass, that's great, but you don't need to spend $3000 on a D800 to get good results with the type of subject matter you are talking about.
The jump to full frame can result in some very expensive glass being required.
The investment in good glass will also improve Image Quality.
If you do still want to go FX. the The D600 may be the better option for you(it has scene modes). firstly the D600 has slightly better High ISO performance compared to the D800. secondly although the D800 has a slightly better autofocus you really don't need that for Scenery.
Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.
6400 ISO, 50mm @ f/2, 1/320 AF-S
10.000 ISO, 50mm @ f/5.6, 1/60 manual focus, night scene. Looks not too bad but once you look in the shadows all details are smeared together. And you can't regain anything because of JPG.
but the D800 combined with an appropriate lens* should be is better for landscapes and low light
* the 24 f 1.4 should fit the bill and be excellent for low light and landscapes
Which way are you leaning?
Considering what you have said, what you are coming from, and that you have a very limited group of lenses, I don't think spending the premium amount on FX is probably the best this time around. I would probably suggest getting a D7200 or even the D5200 and spend the next 3-4 years and extra $$ savings towards FX glass. Lenses (non-consumer) generally are on a 10-year upgrade cycle, and usually last 15-20 years easily and are the better investment if you want to "get into photography."
If you are just looking for a camera to have a super zoom range (i.e. 18-300/28-300) and not get into a full blown hobby DX is even a better option as the cost is much cheaper. The quality jump you will see is substantial coming from the D3100.
To OP: I would think twice before plunging into FX if I were you. Unless you really want/need to shoot at night without a tripod, and need the clean output at High ISOs only FX can provide, go for the D7100 instead or wait for the D400 which is bound to be released before autumn. A Warning, if you decide to go for FX anyway : the D800 produces MASSIVE files. Will take longer time to process and take huge chunks of hard disk space.
I might more be detailed about my shooting technique; I only ever use manual or aperture, shooting RAW, that's all I ever have done, since I got my camera 2 years ago.. Coming from a Sony dslr was bliss, I hated that thing. With the nightscapes I often use the prime and when I don't shoot nightscapes I shoot portraits, using for my friends website and and my church's display stuff, which is slightly different anyway.
The main annoyance the d3100 is the slight lack of control; I used to think its had loads of control, but not its a pain to have to dive into a menu to change things, they're less buttons for things, and that also takes up time..I shot sports at the Olympics, but that was rare and cause I wanted to have a memory, I'm not usually bothered about sports style shots.
...and the flash was suggested by my friend, clearly he knows nothing haha.
At the moment, I'm looking more at lenses, I probably won't change bodies for at least until September/October.. Mostly cause ill take the suggestion of seeing whether the d400 ever appears
Lens wise, the only two I like (in my set) are the 35mm and the 70-300mm.
So, I've decided to concentrate on getting better lenses, so can I ask for suggestions?
- thanks for the help everyone
The reason to go for a full frame camera such as the D600 and D800 is that the offer better sensor performance. When you put a lot of sensors on a small area the individual light gathering sensors need to be smaller. This generally results in less dynamic range and more noise in the image.
So, full frame sensors generally deliver better image quality then dx sensors.
(This doesn't mean that you cant take beautiful pictures with a DX sensor)
On the other hand full frame sensors are bigger so the circle of light produced by the lens (= the image that is projected on the image) needs to be bigger. This requires better lenses in order to maintain image quality. And better lenses cost more.
Nikon currently has 3 full frame cameras of the last generation. The D4, D600 and D800.
The D4 has a phenomenal frame rate (10 images captured per second) and relatively low resolution (16 megapixels). It also has very good high iso performance.
This makes the D4 a perfect sports camera. You can mount a big tele lens (e.g. 200-400) on the camera, crank up the iso and blast away at 10 frames per second to capture the crucial shot where the batter hits the baseball, where the goalkeeper catches the ball of where the basketball player scores the winning 3 pointer.
Newpapers don't need the extreme high resolution but the do need you to get the image.
Al this being said, the D4 is also more then capable of taking exquisite landscape shots, wedding photos,...
The D800 is a totally different camera. Here framerate was sacrificed for a very high resolution (36 megapixels).
The D800 can capture images in astounding detail and has the best dynamic range at base iso. It's high iso performance is also quite good but it's a bit more limited then the D4.
So, don't expect to cover a football match played under moonlight.
Shooting a bird in the forest at 1600iso is perfectly fine.
The part where the D800 excels is landscape photography.
Put it on a tripod for maximum stability, set it at iso 100 and take a picture that can be printed at over a meter in length while still remaining perfectly sharp.
The D800 is my current main camera and it's a wonder of technology. I wouldn't trade it for any other full frame currently on the market.
I expect to use it at the very least for another 4 years. It will be hard to offer another significant improvement on this camera.
The D800 does produce fairly large files.
I shoot RAW lossless compressed in 14 bit.
Then I move these files to a hard disk.
I keep my original NEFs (NIkon raw format) and convert them to DNG (an open raw format from Adobe) using Lightroom 4.
I edit the DNGs using Lightroom 4 and export to highest quality jpg.
Yes, this does eat up a lot of disk space. However, external hard disks (usb 3.0) of 2 TB and more are quite cheap and will only get cheaper over time.
I do my edits on my local hard disk and then copy everything to an external hard disk + external backup hard disk.
Combine this with a modern pc with an intel i7 processor and a minimum of 8GB of ram and you shouldn't have any issues with the file size.
The D600 is a good camera but it lacks the superlative sensor of the D800 or the speed and high iso of the D4.
It's more of a "budget" or introduction version. It's good for people who make the jump but just don't have the budget for the D800. If you have the budget I would go for the D800.
Full frame requires good "glass" (a.k.a. good lenses).
First we have the 3 best professional zooms:
14-24 f2.8 (the extreme wide angle/landscape/cityscape zoom)
24-70 f2.8 (the allround zoom)
70-200 f2.8 (the moderate tele/protrait zoom)
Each of these lenses is build like a tank and has superb optical performance.
Then we have the budget zooms:
24-120 f4 (still a very good allround lens and a bit more reach but still slightly less good then the 24-70 in terms of ultimate sharpness)
70-200 f4 (a new lens with very good image quality. The image quality is about as good as the f2.8 version but it is not build as strongly and, as a result, is lighter as well.)
Still, if you want to save a few bucks then these lenses are a good choise.
Next we have the all round lens:
28-300 f3.5-5.6 (This is useful when you want to go on holiday and take only on lens with you. It has a very good zoom range from wide angle to zoomed in a lot. The down side is that this lens has visible image distortion and is not at sharp as these mentioned above)
For macro I would suggest the 105mm f2.8 macro.
For birding (and with non-professional budgets) I would suggest looking at the new 80-400.
And of course there are also a lot of prime lenses but I'll leave that to others who are more knowledgeable on the subject.
If you're interested in landscape photography I would advise a good tripod. I have a carbon fiber tripod and ballhead by Benro. The weight of the carbon fiber makes it easier to transport when on foot.
As for a flash I would advise the SB-910 (some of the better lenses are so long that the internal flash will throw a visible shadow).
And finally, I put a B+W multi resistant coating (MRC) UV filter on all my lenses as an extra protection. They are not cheap but the don't reduce the image quality, they are very easy to clean and can be life savers.
I hope this helps. Feel free to ask further questions.
In terms of lenses, the ones I've been looking at are
24-85mm (i think that is the kit lens)
50mm prime
85mm macro
However I'll definitely look more into your recommendations - I think my tripod is similar to the one you've suggested, I got it fairly cent,y, to replace my crappy one haha.
I already sold 28-300, it is quite disappointing at the longer end. Contrastwise, soft corners, sharpness in general wide open. I bought it for the reasons John was already talking about but it is in my reality pointless and pumps dust on the sensor.
---------
I would also consider the 16-35 f/4 VR for weight and cost reasons. This is a very useful lens for handheld nightscapes.
---------
If you want a lightweight wide, the new 18-35 G weighs only 350 grams. Has no VR though, but with a FX camera you can bump the ISO and the day will be saved.
---------
The 24mm f/1.4G is the best Nikon lens under $6k IMO. Pricey, but really good indeed.
------------
If you want a good DX wideangle, I doubt anything can beat these two:
- Samyang 8mm fisheye (get the chipped AE version)
- Tokina 11-16 f/2.8
Both are extremely sharp and really fun to use creatively.