# D600 or 800?????



## Reyna (Oct 1, 2012)

I'm more than ready to upgrade to a FX. I've been saving for the 800 for awhile and now that the 600 has come out, I'm seriously considering it. I honestly think 36.2 MP is a little too much? KWIM. At least for me. And with the 600 being $900 cheaper & the grip being $200 cheaper, that sure saves me a ton of money for glass! The only problem I'm having is, will I regret it buying the 600 over the 800 in the future?? When I purchased my 7000, about 18 months ago, I was debating between the 700 & 7000 and went with the 7000 b/c of the price, now I regret it. I don't want to regret getting the 600 but it's SUCH a great camera at a much smaller price. Plus, I don't want such big files clogging up my computer. 

So, what do you guys think??

Thanks!
Holly


----------



## 412 Burgh (Oct 1, 2012)

Personally, I dream of the D800. The D600 isn't in my vision.


----------



## 412 Burgh (Oct 1, 2012)

Or... you could invest all that money into better glass and that will pay off in the future. Your body will be outdated within a few years.


----------



## Reyna (Oct 1, 2012)

Well, here is the problem... I dream of the 85 1.4G since I shoot people. Affordable with my budget, but putting 85mm on my dx is too much distance especially shooting kiddos. Too much. So, my plan is to get the 85mm with my tax return and that lens being on a FX camera will be so.much.better.


----------



## 412 Burgh (Oct 1, 2012)

Reyna said:


> Well, here is the problem... I dream of the 85 1.4G since I shoot people. Affordable with my budget, but putting 85mm on my dx is too much distance especially shooting kiddos. Too much. So, my plan is to get the 85mm with my tax return and that lens being on a FX camera will be so.much.better.



Ahh, makes sense. It would be better to go full fram with the 85 so you get the full field of view. I still would prefer the D800. Haven't got my hands on the D600 but when your spending that much money, what is another 900? I'd rather spend an extra 900 now, instead of wanting to upgrade within a few months. (Which has happened)


----------



## Reyna (Oct 1, 2012)

Also, 412 Burgh, since you dream of the 800, you should read this.  Ken Rockwell's Photography Updates


----------



## Derrel (Oct 1, 2012)

Honestly? I'm pretty happy with 24MP on FX Nikon. It shoots people GREAT! A LOT of acutance, plenty of resolution, and a very good, wide dynamic range. 24MP on FX is QUITE a bit of resolving power compared to an APS-C camera of 12 MP (the D7000 has around 16 MP). I dunno...I think the D800,honestly, is way overkill for shooting in ANY kind of volume. Wanna shoot a kid's soccer game? There is NO "small RAW" setting in the D800, except to go to the APS-C or 8x10 crops. The D800 in high speed crop is like 15.8 MP....soooo...that puts you right back with basically D7000 type file sizes. 24 MP is plenty for a whole host of uses. As to the 85mm lenses...I would say, SKIP the 1.4 AFS-G and *buy the newer 85mm f/1.8 G*-series lens and save a ton of money and still end up with an excellent lens and then buy* ANOTHER excellent lens* with the savings!!! You could drop 3k on a D800...OR get a *D600, a grip, and two fine lenses*. WHICH setup sounds better, when looked at that way???


----------



## spacefuzz (Oct 1, 2012)

I love my D800 but use it for landscapes. So although I may still shoot several hundred photos over a weekend, I usually only edit 1-10.  I did fill up my 2 TB hard drive REALLY fast though! 
Of course now I can print 5+ ft wide and that is worth it to me. So really depends what you use it for.


----------



## Reyna (Oct 1, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Honestly? I'm pretty happy with 24MP on FX Nikon. It shoots people GREAT! A LOT of acutance, plenty of resolution, and a very good, wide dynamic range. 24MP on FX is QUITE a bit of resolving power compared to an APS-C camera of 12 MP (the D7000 has around 16 MP). I dunno...I think the D800,honestly, is way overkill for shooting in ANY kind of volume. Wanna shoot a kid's soccer game? There is NO "small RAW" setting in the D800, except to go to the APS-C or 8x10 crops. The D800 in high speed crop is like 15.8 MP....soooo...that puts you right back with basically D7000 type file sizes. 24 MP is plenty for a whole host of uses. As to the 85mm lenses...I would say, SKIP the 1.4 AFS-G and *buy the newer 85mm f/1.8 G*-series lens and save a ton of money and still end up with an excellent lens and then buy* ANOTHER excellent lens* with the savings!!! You could drop 3k on a D800...OR get a *D600, a grip, and two fine lenses*. WHICH setup sounds better, when looked at that way???



I.completely.agree. I want great pictures of MY kids and I take their pictures at least 3-4 times/week. Plus, the 800 is so freakin' bulky I don't want to lug that thing around to dedications/school functions/ etc. Then, I have other photo shoots but the 600 is a snappy camera! I mean, really! It can do the job and damn well! I just don't want to regret it! Although, I think I have my mind made up


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Oct 1, 2012)

Reyna said:


> Also, 412 Burgh, since you dream of the 800, you should read this.  Ken Rockwell's Photography Updates



FYI...

Citing Ken Rockwell as a resource is dangerous to your credibility. :raisedbrow:


----------



## Reyna (Oct 1, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> Reyna said:
> 
> 
> > Also, 412 Burgh, since you dream of the 800, you should read this.  Ken Rockwell's Photography Updates
> ...



Thanks  I'm not on here for drama or boredom so if someone wants to hate on me for my creditability I don't care. I work full time and have 3 babies & I would hope most people on here know more about this stuff than I do, that's why I come here to ask these questions.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Oct 1, 2012)

Reyna said:


> I just don't want to regret it! Although, I think I have my mind made up



OP, the bright side here is that either one will be a fantastic choice for you. Moving up from DX, even a good one like the D7000, you're going to be amazed at the subtle differences in image quality regardless of what lens you're using. That said, unless you're wanting to do studio work or landscape, I seriously doubt you'll be able to appreciate the areas where the D800 is better at this point in your development. Nikon designed the D600 for people just like you...people itching to make the jump to FX but don't have any particular reason to.

At the end of the day, glass is almost always a better investment. There's a whole lot of great glass you can get for $900 if you play your cards right.

Good luck!


----------



## Derrel (Oct 1, 2012)

The D600 is a better Nikon than 95% of the Nikons that the majority of Nikon shooters on this forum happen to actually own....just sayin'...

Out of the "installed base" of Nikons in the field, the D600 is one of the finest cameras Nikon has ever offered for sale. And yet, sooooo many people try and put it down. I wonder why that might be?


----------



## xyphoto (Oct 1, 2012)

I think you already answered your own question.  In your case, I would get D600 then invest the extra money in good lenses. Camera body has a much shorter life cycle comparing to lenses. Good luck.


----------



## Reyna (Oct 1, 2012)

Thank you all SOOOO much! xyphoto, I think you're right but wanted to make sure b/c this forum has always helped me so much! Plus, this is a huge purchase and I don't want any regrets! You all rock


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 1, 2012)

The D600 might have been my ideal camera design if it just had a tiny bit more focal point coverage.  As is, it's a dang near perfect design, given the price.  If you honestly offered me the D600 and the D800, and told me I couldn't sell the D800 and buy a D600 with the money, that I had to use the camera I chose, I'd honestly be fairly torn.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Oct 1, 2012)

Reyna said:


> Thanks  I'm not on here for drama or boredom so if someone wants to hate on me for my creditability I don't care. I work full time and have 3 babies & I would hope most people on here know more about this stuff than I do, that's why I come here to ask these questions.



Maybe I should be more clear with my sarcasm. Ken has some good information on his site, but he is incredibly biased and VERY opinionated. The rest of the photography world has a love/hate relationship with the guy.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Oct 1, 2012)

Derrel said:


> And yet, sooooo many people try and put it down. I wonder why that might be?



I can't speak for anyone else, but I put it down solely for its price. I think for what it is, it's a fantastic camera. I'm just so so so tired of these companies intentionally gimping one feature or another, just to force people to choose based on items other the specs.


----------



## manaheim (Oct 1, 2012)

I have the D800.  It's ridiculous.  I would have had the D600 had it come out first.  Don't get me wrong, the D800 is an AMAZING camera, but it's really overkill for so much stuff.  D600 is a great camera and gives you some money to save up to replace that 55-200 with something better suited for FF.

Another way to think of this... I loved my D300 and D100 like my children. I always have.  I'd sleep with them under my pillow if I could.  They sit here on my desk next to my monitor so I can see it all the time.  The D800 is a very powerful tool that I leave in my bag and take out when I need to get something done.  And then I put it right back.


----------



## MK3Brent (Oct 1, 2012)

800.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Oct 1, 2012)

Get a D600, the 28mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.8. That's a rockstar wedding/event/landscape/people kit.

The D800 is the slow studio/landscape camera that it's designed to be.


----------



## austriker (Oct 2, 2012)

How about a used D700? Or is that just a silly choice at this point. I like the idea of saving money for better glass and have eyed the D600 as the camera to bring me into full frame..


----------



## Reyna (Oct 3, 2012)

austriker said:


> How about a used D700? Or is that just a silly choice at this point. I like the idea of saving money for better glass and have eyed the D600 as the camera to bring me into full frame..



Used 700's are selling for about $1900. The 600 has tons of features the 700 doesn't. The 700 has 12 mp and the 600 24.3. The D600 offers*: Significantly better image quality,Lower noise at high ISO,Shoots 1080p video, significantly larger LCD screen,much higher true resolution, better color depth, offers in-camera HDR, has more dynamic range, has a100% viewfinder, not an approximating 95% finder, has TWO storage slots,not just one, is significantly lighter, shoots faster, & is smaller.

I don't think it would be smart for me to choose a 700. *


----------



## mjhoward (Oct 3, 2012)

Reyna said:


> austriker said:
> 
> 
> > How about a used D700? Or is that just a silly choice at this point. I like the idea of saving money for better glass and have eyed the D600 as the camera to bring me into full frame..
> ...



I don't know where you're shopping, but I regularly see like new D700's with under 20k clicks going for $1550.  I've seen a couple around the 50k mark approaching $1400.


----------



## soa882 (Oct 3, 2012)

Hi,

I just bought the D800 an if you like then have a look to my website. It is a amazing camera, I would buy again.

Kinder- Familenfotografie I Hamburg I Seevetal I Babyfotografie I Hochzeitsfotografie I Ihr Fotograf and the click my blog

steffi


----------



## Markw (Oct 3, 2012)

I own the d800.  The D600 looks incredible.  And, for your needs, would surely conquer anything you throw at it.  But, the only major gripe for me is that the AF coverage is incredibly limited.  It covers the same area that the D7000 does, on the DX sensor.  And that's not the whole DX sensor.  Putting it in an FX sensor makes it even that much of a smaller space on the sensor.  It's minuscule, at best.  If you can work around that, the D600 may just be the camera for you.

Mark


----------



## Reyna (Oct 3, 2012)

I was shopping on craigslist here in Dallas. I found the 600 at Ryther Camera for $1999 no tax free shipping. Ordering tomorrow!!!


----------



## Tee (Oct 3, 2012)

D600.  Replace the 35mm with the Sigma 24 1.8 and lose the 55-200 for the Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VRII.  Get the 85 1.8 as Derrel suggested (or the 105mm for those nifty macro wedding ring shots) and you're pretty much golden in the glass department (3 great prime focal lengths plus a heck of a zoom lens).  Running the numbers on this set-up is more than the D800 & grip but you get an upgrade in body and glass.  You're going to need good glass to get all the benefits of the D600.


----------



## mjhoward (Oct 3, 2012)

Reyna said:


> I was shopping on craigslist here in Dallas. I found the 600 at Ryther Camera for $1999 no tax free shipping. Ordering tomorrow!!!



Proceed with caution
Rythercamera.com
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=4754.0
http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/ryther-camera-linden-new-jersey-c591971.html


----------



## atdam (Oct 3, 2012)

I'd go for the D800 if I have the $$$, and if I make actual money with my photography, if not, Id go the D600


----------



## Reyna (Oct 4, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> Reyna said:
> 
> 
> > I was shopping on craigslist here in Dallas. I found the 600 at Ryther Camera for $1999 no tax free shipping. Ordering tomorrow!!!
> ...



Oh my! Not worth saving $100 bucks! Thank you for this.


----------



## Reyna (Oct 4, 2012)

Tee said:


> D600.  Replace the 35mm with the Sigma 24 1.8 and lose the 55-200 for the Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VRII.  Get the 85 1.8 as Derrel suggested (or the 105mm for those nifty macro wedding ring shots) and you're pretty much golden in the glass department (3 great prime focal lengths plus a heck of a zoom lens).  Running the numbers on this set-up is more than the D800 & grip but you get an upgrade in body and glass.  You're going to need good glass to get all the benefits of the D600.



I am definitely getting the 85 1.8. Thanks for that Derrel, the reviews are incredible on that lens. 

I think my 50mm will be good glass for this camera. My 55-200 has been on Craigslist for $175 but I see no point in selling it for only $100 ($100 is the best offer I've gotten) and just keeping it for my kids baseball games or something. Not that I'd ever really use it but I don't want to sell it for that cheap! lol. Maybe I'm being stingy... 

I'm keeping my 35 until I get the 600 in my hands... then I'll try and sell it on Craigslist too to pay for my 85!!!!

Should I get the Nikon 28mm 1.8 or Sigma 24mm 1.8?......

Oh, and I'm keeping my d7000 too. I LOVE my camera and I'll need a good backup. My 7000 is an incredible camera as well.


----------



## greybeard (Oct 4, 2012)

For my personal uses, my D7000 is serving me very well.  In my opinion the D800 vs D600, I think the D600 would be the best choice for anyone not specifically needing 36mp.  What other features other than max mp, might make the D800 more desirable than the D600?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Oct 4, 2012)

I have a D700, but just had to have the D*8*00 too. Although I'm sure you'll be pleased with a D600 as well


----------



## Solarflare (Oct 4, 2012)

Derrel said:


> The D600 is a better Nikon than 95% of the Nikons that the majority of Nikon shooters on this forum happen to actually own....just sayin'...
> 
> Out of the "installed base" of Nikons in the field, the D600 is one of the finest cameras Nikon has ever offered for sale. And yet, sooooo many people try and put it down. I wonder why that might be?


 Its hard to put in words.

When I heard about the D600, I thought it would be an impossible to resist offer. Full frame, 24 Megapixels, and all the stats of the D7000. Whow. Just whow.

Now its out, its a great camera - but its just not as completely perfect as I pictured it. Theres just some weaknesses in central things that I didnt expect and that put a dent into the perfect shiny armor, that lowers the overall quality from "OMG its too perfect, how can I possibly resist this" to just "well, its great, but ...".

The D600 is indeed kind of a D7000 with full frame. It even has a bug of the D7000, or so I've heard - you cant change aperture in lifeview mode, so you have to switch back and forth to change it. Well, thats mostly just funny and nothing that makes the camera impossible to use - also you can bypass it by using non-G lenses and hopefully they publish a firmware update to fix that one (well, there is at least some hope they do, anyway), and most of the time I wont use lifeview anyway.

But it has only 1/4000 sec shutter speed max, and a very narrow AF. Okay - it also has some advantages with video I dont care about, and it allows AF at f/8 which is definitely a truely great feat, I absolutely loved that the quiet mode actually works, oh and of course it has more ISO performance and more Megapixels. All very, very nice, but just not as perfect and overpowering as I suspected.

I kind of dont want to lose the advantage of my D5100 to have not many, but a wide field of AF points. AF, as it turned out, is sometimes highly important for me. I would also hate to lose the flip screen (which I absolutely love to have, because I can flip it around and have no annoying monitor at all, there are no controls I can press when viewing through the viewfinder because the controls have been convieniently moved to the right, and because I can flip it in all kind of directions to get all kinds of shots while still being able to see what I'm doing) and the camera would get bigger and heavier and the lenses would get a lot bigger and heavier (I would probably go for 28mm f1.8, 50mm f1.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 VR2).





atdam said:


> I'd go for the D800 if I have the $$$, and if I make actual money with my photography, if not, Id go the D600


 I would go for the D4 if I had to make money with photography. Well, okay, depends upon the kind of photography; for some types the D800E would be better.


----------



## enerlevel (Oct 4, 2012)

I happened to be in a similar situation .. But also had a third option which was D3s.  
The D600 feels very much like the D7000 and is smaller then D800. Both are great cameras and I couldn't justify why I should not pay just £300 more and get the D800...  If the price difference was higher , then I would had gone for the D600 but the D800 being a better camera and just 300 more, I think it's a better deal.


----------



## plexi32 (Oct 4, 2012)

Solarflare said:
			
		

> The D600 is indeed kind of a D7000 with full frame. It even has a bug of the D7000, or so I've heard - you cant change aperture in lifeview mode, so you have to switch back and forth to change it. Well, thats mostly just funny and nothing that makes the camera impossible to use - also you can bypass it by using non-G lenses and hopefully they publish a firmware update to fix that one (well, there is at least some hope they do, anyway), and most of the time I wont use lifeview anyway.



I can't verify that bug on my D7000 with a Sigma 17-70 nor my Nikkor 35 1.8 G. Liveview on M allows me to change aperture as it should


----------



## Solarflare (Oct 5, 2012)

plexi32 said:


> I can't verify that bug on my D7000 with a Sigma 17-70 nor my Nikkor 35 1.8 G. Liveview on M allows me to change aperture as it should


 Very interesting. I only got told it was this way *shrug* I once handled a D7000 of a friend, but I didnt used lifeview.

Maybe it was an early bug of the D7000 that they fixed with a firmware update or something. I dont know.


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 5, 2012)

plexi32 said:
			
		

> I can't verify that bug on my D7000 with a Sigma 17-70 nor my Nikkor 35 1.8 G. Liveview on M allows me to change aperture as it should



Solar flare talking about 'bugs' in equipment that he's only ever 'heard' about?  Huh, imagine that.


----------



## 21limited (Oct 5, 2012)

There is an issue I haven't seen addressed here.  But it is addressed here. 

Short synopsis, theoretically it's possible that you could get the same image from a D600 by upsizing in photoshop than you can get with a D800. The theoretical limit of a sensor like the one in the D800 is 35 MP. However, that would require a perfect lens. The authors refer to this as the custom made lens you can't buy in the store anywhere. So the next question becomes , is there any lens made today that can resolve detail at the level the D800 can capture. And the answer is clearly no. 

The next question then becomes, well how much detail can a lens produce and what size sensor is adequate to capture it? That question hasn't been answered by the theorists. I have no idea how to transpose MTF data to draw conclusions on sensor utilization. So from my perspective.. it's quite possible that 24 Mp would be enough to achieve maximum detail for any but the absolute best Nikkor lenses. I suspect to take full advantage of a D800 you need to spend somewhere in the neighborhood of 8K in lenses just to cover the 12-200mm with zooms and then add a few primes.

So my advice would be... unless you can see yourself paying $2000 plus for a single zoom lens you probably are going to be able to get as much out of a D600 as you are out of a D800.

But I'd really like to see some real world examples to back that up before I'd use it for any kind of a decision. Actually just knowing that you get more detailed images from a D800 than a D600 with any lens would be helpful.

My choice right now would be a D600. Printing to 5 feet wide just isn't in my deck of cards. People say my landscapes look like paintings, and they love them. They look like paintings because I shoot APS-c and blow 120 DPI up to 300 DPI for printing. The images don't look razor sharp, and IMHO and the opinions of those who like my work, they are better for it. I'd have absolutely no problem printing 5 feet wide if asked. When a picture is 5 feet wide people have to stand back further to view it, and the up close detail doesn't have to be as good. From a distance, they look the same. I know people who get good results printing from a D700. I'm not going to get caught up in the MP game, until I can see the benefits. The downside is obvious. More hard drive space, slower processing times in PP and  the need for more expensive glass to get the most out of the system. For me, there has to be a proven upside before I look at a D800.


----------



## Vautrin (Oct 5, 2012)

split the difference : used d700


----------



## 21limited (Oct 5, 2012)

Vautrin said:


> split the difference : used d700



As a Pentax guy (APS-c), if I wanted to try out FF, I'd be seriously tempted to go there first.


----------



## Ballistics (Oct 5, 2012)

plexi32 said:


> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm going to have to disagree here. The only way to change aperture in live view, is if you have the aperture ring on the lens.


----------



## Tee (Oct 5, 2012)

21limited said:


> Vautrin said:
> 
> 
> > split the difference : used d700
> ...



It really is a wonderful camera and I love that it doesn't have video.  In fact, it's sitting in my lap and I'm petting it like a kitten.  In another 3 months the price will drop a few hundo more and I will pick up a second body.  I urge all D700 users to sell their perfectly capable cameras now and upgrade and then let me know when you're selling. :mrgreen:


----------



## lemonart (Oct 5, 2012)

I tried both out at the store the other day.  Saved the images to an SD to compare at home.

Basically the biggest issue is the operation and internal systems.  Honestly the sensor is spectacular and just as capable as the D800.

My biggest issue is the focusing and metering mechanisms.  Well, it's not so much an issue as it is the thing that's still making me consider the 800 or 800E.  As a casual shooter, I'm not entirely certain I need the metering capabilities or rapid focus of the 800.... But it was so darned nice it's really hard to say 'no'.  I preferred the viewfinder on the 800 as well, and, to an extent, the controls.

At the end of the day I'm leaning towards the 600 and hope Nikon really hits one out of the park in a couple years with a d900 or whatever.  With a sensor that exceptional on the 600 it's hard for me to justify the advanced operation on the 800 when it would only marginally improve my personal experience at my level.

Lem


----------



## StandingBear1983 (Oct 5, 2012)

Can you feel a big difference in the size of the viewfinder between the two? - for me, the viewfinder is very important...


----------



## lemonart (Oct 6, 2012)

StandingBear1983 said:
			
		

> Can you feel a big difference in the size of the viewfinder between the two? - for me, the viewfinder is very important...



There is an absolute difference, but not as much a swing as the 800 is to the 7000.  The 600 has 100% coverage in FX and everything looks crisp in it.  the frame feels much less compressed than the 7000 but still not quite as open as the 800.  It is an excellent finder for the price.

The 800's finder is noticeably larger.  The comfort level is also superior what with the circular, large, eye opening.  Once your eye is inside it just feels.... Well like a really true to life, honest frame.

That all said, the 600 has a fantastic finder!  I'd be hard pressed to choose it over the 800 for what I do.  But, if the finder is everything to you then the 800 is going to feel better.  $1000 better?  Well... That's hard to quantify and that's where actually going to the store and trying them out is going to come in .  Obviously,  If money is no object and the finder is your buying point, go for the 800 100%.  But if money is as key an issue as the finder, I'd really recommend seeing it for yourself first if possible.

Lem


----------



## enerlevel (Oct 6, 2012)

The d600 is surely going to come down in prices and the d800 has already fallen from its initial £2600 release to £2000.over here the d600 sells for £1650. So for an extra £350 I would go for a better model. Also using the d600 with bigger lens feels abit weird . Also I am using the 70-300 on the d800 and don't really see why the lens can't handle the 36mp ...


----------



## Tee (Oct 6, 2012)

enerlevel said:


> The d600 is surely going to come down in prices and the d800 has already fallen from its initial £2600 release to £2000.over here the d600 sells for £1650.



You have to take into consideration the currency exchange rate.
2600 pounds = $4194 US
2000 pounds = $3226 US
Current US price at B&H store: $2999 US.  It's going to be a long time before the US price drops.

The US price difference between the D800 and D600 is almost $1,000.  

*p.s. I don't know how to do the fancy pound symbol


----------



## thereyougo! (Oct 6, 2012)

enerlevel said:


> The d600 is surely going to come down in prices and the d800 has already fallen from its initial £2600 release to £2000.over here the d600 sells for £1650. So for an extra £350 I would go for a better model. Also using the d600 with bigger lens feels abit weird . Also I am using the 70-300 on the d800 and don't really see why the lens can't handle the 36mp ...



Where have you seen it for £2000?  I paid £2298 in Gray's of Westminster which is a Nikon specialiist so I knew I wasn't going to get internet prices for it.  I have seen it online for about £2150, but not lower than that.  I don't shop for cameras online.  I prefer to hold them and play around with them.  That's my first preference with lenses too, but a company I use for lenses, Ffordes, is based outside Inverness and its not practical t go up there.  They are reliable and their ratings for their used gear is very conservative so I trust the description of the condition of the equipment from  there.


----------



## thereyougo! (Oct 6, 2012)

Lynet55te said:


> Citing Ken Rockwell as a resource is dangerous to your credibility.



Some would say that, but Ken 'feed my growing family' Rockwell isn't an absolute idiot.  You just have to take what he says with a good dose of salt - same could be said of many reviewers...You should never buy an item simply off the strength of a review - very few are truly objective as photography is rarely an objective medium.


----------



## enerlevel (Oct 6, 2012)

thereyougo! said:
			
		

> Where have you seen it for £2000?  I paid £2298 in Gray's of Westminster which is a Nikon specialiist so I knew I wasn't going to get internet prices for it.  I have seen it online for about £2150, but not lower than that.  I don't shop for cameras online.  I prefer to hold them and play around with them.  That's my first preference with lenses too, but a company I use for lenses, Ffordes, is based outside Inverness and its not practical t go up there.  They are reliable and their ratings for their used gear is very conservative so I trust the description of the condition of the equipment from  there.



Jessops sells it for £2050. If you go to any jessops outside London, they also give you discounts. I brought mine from Basingstoke for £2000. But they would only fall to £1650 for the d600. So for me, 350 was ok for a better and higher model. I also hate online shopping. I would rather hold and check for any focus issues then saving a few quids and shopping online.


----------



## StandingBear1983 (Oct 6, 2012)

lemonart said:


> StandingBear1983 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well i saved already for the D800 so i have enough, plus my birthday is coming soon , anyway, i have hands of a yeti so i want it also with the grip, and keep my D5100 as a backup....I'm sure it will feel like a normal camera at last in my hands, and not a girly toy camera , but seriously after 12000 shutter counts, the d5100 is a great camera on the inside...i have no complains on the quality of photos that i got with it, its just time for me to handle a more serious DSLR, after i learned a lot from the D5100...


----------



## JDFlood (Oct 6, 2012)

You answered the question in your question. You regreted getting the d7000... Don't repeat it. Get the D800.


----------



## Solarflare (Oct 7, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> plexi32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The fun part is that I HAVE handled the D7000 and I even said so in this thread, just some postings above yours.


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 7, 2012)

Solarflare said:
			
		

> The fun part is that I HAVE handled the D7000 and I even said so in the posting you answered to.



Yes, but you haven't ever actually had the problem you were so expertly talking about.

Edit: I've handled just about every major dslr canon or Nikon makes. But I don't really talk much about cameras that I haven't taken more than about 100 or so shots with. And when I do, I try to make it as clear as possible that I have little experience with the gear and that perhaps they Gould give more credence to those who use that equipment on a daily basis. 

For the new posters, you often make it seem like you're very familiar with equipment you've either never used or barely used. You talk about 'issues' with equipment you've never experienced and you constantly spread unsubstantiated rumors as if they were established fact (for instance you've stated that the d600 was Nikons replacement for the d7000 several times, as if it were a a fact).


----------



## Tee (Oct 7, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> For the new posters, you often make it seem like you're very familiar with equipment you've either never used or barely used. You talk about 'issues' with equipment you've never experienced and you constantly spread unsubstantiated rumors as if they were established fact (for instance you've stated that the d600 was Nikons replacement for the d7000 several times, as if it were a a fact).



Come to think of it, I don't recall seeing any of his pictures, either.


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 7, 2012)

Tee said:
			
		

> Come to think of it, I don't recall seeing any of his pictures, either.



I don't necessarily care about that quite as much. The one that drove me insane was the time he 'reviewed' a lens that wasn't even released yet (the Nikon 18-300 IIRC) and told a new poster AS IF IT WERE FACT that it wasn't as good as the 18-200.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Oct 7, 2012)

I'd get a D600 and the 1.8G primes....stellar lenses and a stellar sensor..


----------



## plexi32 (Oct 7, 2012)

Ballistics said:
			
		

> I'm going to have to disagree here. The only way to change aperture in live view, is if you have the aperture ring on the lens.



That's weird. It is really working here:

http://youtu.be/v0uNxYuAo8o


----------



## Solarflare (Oct 8, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> Yes, but you haven't ever actually had the problem you were so expertly talking about.


 I have never claimed I would be an expert when it comes to photography, and I probably will never be an expert for that.



fjrabon said:


> I don't necessarily care about that quite as much. The one that drove me insane was the time he 'reviewed' a lens that wasn't even released yet (the Nikon 18-300 IIRC) and told a new poster AS IF IT WERE FACT that it wasn't as good as the 18-200.


 Thats very likely your own misinterpretation of my posting, because I wouldnt state that as a fact.



Tee said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > Come to think of it, I don't recall seeing any of his pictures, either.
> ...


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 8, 2012)

Solarflare said:
			
		

> I have never claimed I would be an expert when it comes to photography, and I probably will never be an expert for that.
> 
> Thats very likely your own misinterpretation of my posting, because I wouldnt state that as a fact.



See the problem with saying that you never claimed to have used the product is that most new people tend to assume when you're talking about a product, that you actually know what you're talking about and have extensively used the product. So when you talk about products and that isn't the case, you should preface your post with "I don't actually own this product nor have i actually used it for more than a couple of minutes, and really have no idea what I'm talking about, so take my comments for what they're worth."  You can't just say "I never claimed to be an expert", because the fact that you make certain claims tends to imply that you know what you're talking about.


----------



## Tee (Oct 8, 2012)

> And you never will, at least not consciously, since I wont publish anything in this forum.



Why not?


----------



## molested_cow (Oct 8, 2012)

On paper the D600 looks amazing. I only got to hold it without battery or lens mounted. Compared to the D700, the grip doesn't feel too much different except the finger portion is a bit thinner, doesn't matter to me.
The fit and finish does look cheaper than the D700. The plastic texture especially, could have used a bit more treatment or a different texture.

Other than that, I can't say much about it since I never got to play around with it. I'd jump for it if I were you. It just seems too good to be true.


----------



## photographyfan (Oct 8, 2012)

If you are leaning towards the D600, it is available right now at a $100 savings ($2,596.95 for camera and 24-85mm lens), plus 2% Amazon rewards! Check out Amazon.com: Nikon D600 24.3 MP CMOS FX-Format Digital SLR Camera with 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR AF-S Nikkor Lens: NIKON: Camera & Photo


----------

