# D800 vs. D800E vs. D600 vs. D7100



## globeglimpser (Apr 12, 2013)

As you can see I know I want my next camera to be black and yellow. Please provide input - any help/opinion is valued:

- I like shooting outdoor stuff (Landscapes, Wildlife etc.) - will need something tough and durable
- I can afford these models but any money saved can go towards glass
- Is full frame disadvantageous apart from the more limited range of lenses?
- Low light performance I am guessing is something that these are all good at, are any exceptionally good?

If it helps, I currently have a D5100 with a 18-55 and 55-300 which I want to keep as a backup... I don't mind looking at new lenses if I get a full frame though.

Thank you all

PS. Both actual experience and speculation will be appreciated


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 12, 2013)

globeglimpser said:


> As you can see I know I want my next camera to be black and yellow. Please provide input - any help/opinion is valued:
> 
> - I like shooting outdoor stuff (Landscapes, Wildlife etc.) - will need something tough and durable



Unless you toss your gear around like the gorilla in the old luggage commercials, any model will do.




globeglimpser said:


> - I can afford these models but any money saved can go towards glass



I'd say the D600 would work just fine.




globeglimpser said:


> - Is full frame disadvantageous apart from the more limited range of lenses?



The F-mount has been around since 1959, and all the 3-rd party manufacturer's lenses work on it as well.  What 'limited range of lenses' are you concerned about?  You can get lenses from 6mm to 2000mm that will work on. How much more range to you want?




globeglimpser said:


> - Low light performance I am guessing is something that these are all good at, are any exceptionally good?



Speculation here:  I'd say the D800 or D800E _might _have a _slight _edge on low-light performance.


----------



## snowbear (Apr 12, 2013)

globeglimpser said:


> . . .
> - Is full frame disadvantageous apart from the more limited range of lenses?



I wouldn't call the omission of DX lenses a limited range, especially when taking the used market into account.  I have no personal experience with  them, but I've read a few times, on here, that the D800/E really requires the best glass to get the quality.

edit: The sparky one beat me to it while I was editing!


----------



## brunerww (Apr 12, 2013)

Hi globeglimpser - Providentially, I happened to see this D7100/D800E comparison from David over at soundimageplus yesterday: The SOUNDIMAGEPLUS blog: Nikon D7100 - Review and user experience - Part 2 - Compared to D800E

If you care about resolution and low light noise, and budget is not an issue, the D800E looks like the better choice, to my eye.

Hope this is helpful,

Bill
Hybrid Camera Revolution


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 12, 2013)

snowbear said:


> globeglimpser said:
> 
> 
> > . . .
> ...



If DX lenses are considered as part of this 'limited range', DX lenses can always be used on _any_ current Nikon body.


----------



## WhiteBalance (Apr 12, 2013)

Being that they are all current Nikon generation cameras you really can't go wrong with anyone you choose.  If low light performance is a major concern than I would opt for one of the full frame cameras, with the D600 being more than capable.  On the other hand if fast FPS and more reach are more of a concern than the D7100 with its 1.5 and 1.3 crop factors would look more appealing.  As stated earlier by 480-Sparky, all of the cameras are pretty rugged and absent abuse they will stand up to everyday outdoor shooting conditions, water excluded.  Speaking personally tho, if the D800(E) is an viable option than there really isn't much of a choice for me, go with that and you wont be disappointed.  As long as your computer can process the larger files efficiently.  Good luck with your decision.


----------



## snowbear (Apr 12, 2013)

480sparky said:


> If DX lenses are considered as part of this 'limited range', DX lenses can always be used on _any_ current Nikon body.



I know, and even some older ones (with some limitations)!  I put my 18-135 DX on my N90 and got some usable results at the longer end.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 12, 2013)

All of those cameras are great, but the one thing that may be the trump card is that buying a full frame camera without a compliment if full frame lenses is essentially wasting your time and money.  You can use the dx lenses on fx cameras but they basically cut your resolution (and size of your sensor) in half or worse.  A 12mp image becomes a 5mp one.

So... I'd you could swing maybe something like a d600 and a full frame zoom lens that works within your typical shooting range, then that would be a good option... Else I'd say stick with the D7100 (which is a phenomenal dx camera)


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 12, 2013)

Oh, and here's the commercial I referred to:


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 12, 2013)

snowbear said:


> I know, and even some older ones (with some limitations)!  I put my 18-135 DX on my N90 and got some usable results at the longer end.



I do the same with my 10-24.  I can shoot FX at 10mm and crop a wider FOV than the camera does in DX mode.

I also have opted to keep my 10.5 DX fisheye instead of upping to the 16mm FX.



ETA:  Here's a thought:  My long-term plans have always included going to FX, which I did late last year when I got my D600.  But I intended to keep my D7000 and D60 and backups, along with the DX glass I have.  HOWEVER:  My long-term plans also include the future, which right now means upgrading in a few years to whatever Nikon is incubating right now.  Then, my D600 will become my back-up, and I'll probably sell all my DX gear.

Meaning (to the OP): Up to just the D600 for now, as an 'interim' FX body.  If it works out, then you've reached nirvana. If it just isn't quite there, then move on up the money ladder and make the D600 your backup.


----------



## TheLost (Apr 12, 2013)

The best camera out of that bunch is the D800E...  Its not a hard choice.

If you can afford the D800E buy it.
If you cant but still want full frame buy the D600.
If not, buy the D7100.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 12, 2013)

TheLost said:


> The best camera out of that bunch is the D800E...  Its not a hard choice.
> 
> If you can afford the D800E buy it.
> If you cant but still want full frame buy the D600.
> If not, buy the D7100.




I could have easily afforded the D800.  But there were some things about it that made me decide against it.  In the end, I couldn't justify spending money on features I didn't need.


----------



## JDFlood (Apr 12, 2013)

The order you should consider is the inverse order of cost. I shoot a D800 with D700 as backup. I would have a D800 e if I had the patience to wait (I preordered). You don't want a DX for the kind of shooting you want do. You get the D800 and you will not need another body in a long time. Get a prime lens (like a 35mm or 50mm) and spend a couple years improving your photography and then you can save up for more glass. While I have been doing photography since the '60s, I really didn't get good until the last few years with a digital ( fast and ubiquitous feedback) and the better I get, the less I use zooms and the less different lens I use. I think the short path to real improvement would be to have just a 35mm for a year. Then add a 85mm for a year.Then maybe a 24mm and see where you were then. JD


----------



## manaheim (Apr 12, 2013)

Oh yeah... I have to say I would have gotten the D800e if I had thought about it more before I bought, but the D800e is going to be more work in pp so be aware of what you're doing when you choose that.

The D800 cameras are NOT toys.  They are a pretty serious commitment needing a fair bit of know how and processing power.  Tread carefully.


----------



## goodguy (Apr 12, 2013)

I would go with the D600, from more then few comparisons I saw between the D600 with the other cameras I found that the D600 is the best full frame camera for a non professional user, lots of the goodies the D800 is offering will go lost on a non pro user or VERY serious hobbyist.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 12, 2013)

TheLost said:


> The best camera out of that bunch is the D800E...  Its not a hard choice.
> 
> If you can afford the D800E buy it.
> If you cant but still want full frame buy the D600.
> If not, buy the D7100.



There you go.


----------



## CaptainNapalm (Apr 12, 2013)

Yes there is other disadvantages to full frame.  For one, these cameras are larger and heavier (to some this may be an advantage, to most a disadvantage).  I spent a day shooting with a D800 and can tell you first hand that after a few hours I was tired of lugging around the camera and the bag of heavy lenses (and I'm not a soft/small guy I squat 350 lbs for reps on a weekly basis).  Matter of fact, the camera even felt heavy in my hand after a half hour whereas the D7000 which I own is perfect size and weight for my taste.  Second, the lenses are genarally larger and heavier and more expensive.  Sure you can use DX lenses but those will cripple your FX body potential.  Next, the D800 files are very large.  I got home with a few hundred photos and it took me a longer than anticipated time to download them to my MacBook Air and my machine got crippled trying to edit these large files on my macbook with PSE.  It got to the point where I knew that I needed a faster computer to process all these files and certainly a larger hard drive if I were to commit to that camera full time.  Sure everyone will tell you that sotrage is cheap these days, but consider also the computer you're using, this may have to be replaced too, editing files that are 10mb vs 40mb is a monumental shift.  So this is my advice to you from my experience with the D800.  If I were going to buy an FX body, it would be the D600 which closer resembles the size and weight of the D7000.


----------



## sashbar (Apr 12, 2013)

I have not seen your photos so I am not drawing any parallels here, but consider this. As mentioned here, D800 type of a camera is not a toy. I have a friend who is a casual photographer, he likes to shoot landscapes and sunsets and birds etc.  And he was feeling very comfortable with his old Canon 600D, cheerfully posting his pics and walking around with his little camera in his bag. 
Now, all of a sudden he decided to get serious and bought  5D Mk III and some pro lenses.  And let me tell you,  he now loooks rather stupid. He still is a casual photographer, and his photos are still rather dull and uninspiring. It did not make him a better photographer. Last time he came over he did not bring the camera "because it is too heavy". He stopped posting his photos, because you know, with this camera you have no excuses for a poor amateur photography.  We used to go out for a shooting together, compared our photos and had a great fun. Now, we did not do this since he bought his new toy (NOT)  I do not know, maybe he is just very busy with something...  
It was a great lesson to me  a serious camera demands some serious dedication. Otherwise it just may backfire... 
So, having said that I think D7100 would be a great upgrade if you need a more practical and convenient camera with direct buttons and D600 would be probably a sensible upgrade if you are very good and D5100 limits your capabilities. 
Otherwise I would think twice. In my amateiurs opinion Nikon did not hit the nail on its head with D600 and D800. I think Canon did it with 5D Mk III. So it is interesting how will Nikon respond.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 12, 2013)

CaptainNapalm said:


> Yes there is other disadvantages to full frame.  For one, these cameras are larger and heavier (to some this may be an advantage, to most a disadvantage).  I spent a day shooting with a D800 and can tell you first hand that after a few hours I was tired of lugging around the camera and the bag of heavy lenses (and I'm not a soft/small guy I squat 350 lbs for reps on a weekly basis).  Matter of fact, the camera even felt heavy in my hand after a half hour whereas the D7000 which I own is perfect size and weight for my taste.  Second, the lenses are genarally larger and heavier and more expensive.  Sure you can use DX lenses but those will cripple your FX body potential.  Next, the D800 files are very large.  I got home with a few hundred photos and it took me a longer than anticipated time to download them to my MacBook Air and my machine got crippled trying to edit these large files on my macbook with PSE.  It got to the point where I knew that I needed a faster computer to process all these files and certainly a larger hard drive if I were to commit to that camera full time.  Sure everyone will tell you that sotrage is cheap these days, but consider also the computer you're using, this may have to be replaced too, editing files that are 10mb vs 40mb is a monumental shift.  So this is my advice to you from my experience with the D800.  If I were going to buy an FX body, it would be the D600 which closer resembles the size and weight of the D7000.



I don't get the size thing. Once any camera is bigger than something you can shove in your pocket or purse, they are all essentially equal in size... And the d800 is only a tiny bit bigger than the d7000... And I'm not going to go check but I think the d600 is actually smaller.


----------



## CaptainNapalm (Apr 12, 2013)

manaheim said:


> I don't get the size thing. Once any camera is bigger than something you can shove in your pocket or purse, they are all essentially equal in size... And the d800 is only a tiny bit bigger than the d7000... And I'm not going to go check but I think the d600 is actually smaller.



I was under the same impression as you until I actually shot with the d800 for a day. To me it made a big difference, not so much the size but the weight.  But I think we're all different in that regard. My wife lugs her purse around for a full day which weighs like 15 lbs and when she asks me to carry it for her I start getting annoyed with it after 15 minutes. I guess it depends what you're use to.


----------



## globeglimpser (Apr 13, 2013)

Hi All, Thanks for all the input - I'm going to throw a spanner in the works now...

Firstly though I would like to note that I am leaning toward the D600. I find I am sometimes limited by my D5100 and feel experienced enough to take a big step. Besides, moving to full frame has always been the dream  I also see the D800 as being a bit costly especially since I won't need all the features it has to offer - I can't justify the purchase. I just used that same logic to convince myself there is no need to upgrade my Samsung Galaxy S2 to the new S4...

Now for the Problem: I am thinking of investing in some zoomy glass instead of a body for my trip back home to South Africa in July. I would then purchase the camera in say August-October. Or I can buy the body now too - and have no money left. To make this decision, I would like to know everyone's speculation on when the D600 is going to be replaced. If its not for a while, I may get the body and lens now else I can wait until then... The way I see it, Nikon may have something lined up to drive prices down or maybe top the D600...

An extra question: Any opinions on the Nikon J1 and the other such similar cameras. They look like cool little cameras just for quick snaps...



PS. By outdoor durability I meant the camera may high 5 occasional rocks, trees and will see a fair bit of dust and water - I like to live on the edge. Just kidding, but I do sometimes feel that I am really mistreating my D5100 and would like a camera that can take everything it gets...


----------



## manaheim (Apr 13, 2013)

D600 just came out.  You have a while.


----------



## TheLost (Apr 13, 2013)

globeglimpser said:


> I can't justify the purchase. I just used that same logic to convince myself there is no need to upgrade my Samsung Galaxy S2 to the new S4...


Wrong comparison   ..  Going from the S2 to the S4 is more like going from the D70 to the D7100.  There are lots of reasons to upgrade.  Going from the S4 to an iPhone 5 is a better example of D600 vs. D800 



globeglimpser said:


> Now for the Problem: I am thinking of investing in some zoomy glass instead of a body for my trip back home to South Africa in July. I would then purchase the camera in say August-October. Or I can buy the body now too - and have no money left.


Just make sure you buy FX glass!



globeglimpser said:


> To make this decision, I would like to know everyone's speculation on when the D600 is going to be replaced. If its not for a while, I may get the body and lens now else I can wait until then... The way I see it, Nikon may have something lined up to drive prices down or maybe top the D600...


My guess is we'll see a D4 or D800 upgrade before a D600 upgrade.



globeglimpser said:


> An extra question: Any opinions on the Nikon J1 and the other such similar cameras. They look like cool little cameras just for quick snaps...


The J1 is a nice camera (The V1 and V2 are a bit better)...  My travel camera is the Sony RX100..  20mp, 1" sensor, built like a tank, smaller then the Nikon 1 series and great in low light.

The fun thing about the V1/2 and J1/2 is you can buy the FT-1 mount and use all your Nikon DX/FX lenses. 



globeglimpser said:


> PS. By outdoor durability I meant the camera may high 5 occasional rocks, trees and will see a fair bit of dust and water - I like to live on the edge. Just kidding, but I do sometimes feel that I am really mistreating my D5100 and would like a camera that can take everything it gets...


Has your D5100 broke yet?  If not... then the better built D7100, D600 and D800 can take any abuse you can toss at it.


----------



## goodguy (Apr 13, 2013)

D600 is the right way to go, get it now my guess it will be replaced in 1-2 years or even more as its fairly new.

Good luck


----------



## keirem (Apr 13, 2013)

I bought a D5100 early last summer which is a great camera but thought it was to big to carry around when traveling, so a month later I picked up the Nikon 1 J1 and love it for a quick and simple camera that I can take everywhere. And just last month upgraded my D5100 to the D600 and do not regret the discussion. Both the D600 and the Nikon 1 J1 are great. I think you would be happy with those choices if you go that route.


----------



## dwswager (Apr 26, 2013)

globeglimpser said:


> As you can see I know I want my next camera to be black and yellow. Please provide input - any help/opinion is valued:
> 
> - I like shooting outdoor stuff (Landscapes, Wildlife etc.) - will need something tough and durable
> - Low light performance I am guessing is something that these are all good at, are any exceptionally good?
> If it helps, I currently have a D5100 with a 18-55 and 55-300 which I want to keep as a backup... I don't mind looking at new lenses if I get a full frame though.



You have same problem as most of us. You are looking for a single camera to be a multi use tool.

*FX* - Better and easier to go wide (though there are some very good wide DX lenses now) [Landscape] Its also easer to get shallow DoF effects.
*DX *- Better and easier (at least cheaper) to go long [Wildlife]

Of course, a body like the D800 can be put in DX mode which not only does the cropping, but boosts the frame rate from 4fps to 5 while giving you a 15.4MP image. Since I would be using an FX lens in DX mode, the loss I get from letting the camera do the crop is made up by using only the middle sweet spot out of the lens. (A DX frame size turns most FX lenses into very good lenses. It eliminates most barrel, pincusion, light fall off issues.)

As a D300 shooter looking into the D800 vs D600, the AF sensor on the D600 scares me. I got used to almost full frame coverage (at least horizontally) of the 51 point AF sensor on the DX D300. I lost the ability to use focus lock from the N90s because I really didn't need to on the D300. I shoot a lot of Softball/Baseball and there are tons of situations where the subject is at the extreme edge of the frame. I can work around the limitation, but I have blown tons of shots because the actual subject has moved out of sensor area and in low light with fast moving subject you're not getting much DoF! This is not an issue for others that are putting subjects more in the middle of the frame or who have maintained their focus lock button skills.



*Recommendation: *Unless you are printing posters and billboards, none of us need 36MP images and the processing and storage penalty that comes with them. That is just a fact. That said, if you can afford it and can afford the lens upgrades to feed the sensor and are willing to use good technique, the D800 is an awesome camera. Otherwise, I'd go with the D600 as the FX choice or the D7100 as the DX choice.


----------



## o hey tyler (Apr 26, 2013)

CaptainNapalm said:


> I was under the same impression as you until I actually shot with the d800 for a day. To me it made a big difference, not so much the size but the weight.  But I think we're all different in that regard. My wife lugs her purse around for a full day which weighs like 15 lbs and when she asks me to carry it for her I start getting annoyed with it after 15 minutes. I guess it depends what you're use to.



You can bench 350lbs, but you get tired of a 3lb camera for a day and a 15lbs purse after 15 minutes? 

Jeeze, I would carry around any full frame body with a big piece of glass all day with a black rapid and not even think twice about it. I don't even lift bro.


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 26, 2013)

> none of us need 36MP images and the processing and storage penalty that comes with them.



I pointed this out to you in another thread. This... isn't... true. Printing size is only a partial reason why you use the 36MP. The other side of that coin is cropping and of course, detail. 
And ALL FX bodies have a DX mode. So the reach for wildlife is a non-factor, the factor would be the lower resolution, D600 crops to 11MP and D800 crops to 16MP.

And the space isn't bad at all. 14bit lossless compressed averages 40MB a file. 



> s a D300 shooter looking into the D800 vs D600, the AF sensor on the D600 scares me. I got used to almost full frame coverage (at least horizontally) of the 51 point AF sensor on the DX D300.


Almost full frame, on a crop sensor. It's the same coverage on a D800, albeit there's more sensor. In other words, you're used to the limitations of the crop FOV, where as, you're essentially taking the same photo, but with more breathing room. No FF camera has the same AF coverage as DX.

I literally had zero issues going from the D7000 to the D800 with autofocus. Not one bit.


----------



## CaptainNapalm (Apr 26, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> You can bench 350lbs, but you get tired of a 3lb camera for a day and a 15lbs purse after 15 minutes?
> 
> Jeeze, I would carry around any full frame body with a big piece of glass all day with a black rapid and not even think twice about it. I don't even lift bro.
> 
> <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=43266"/>



Everyone's different. Maybe I didn't express myself properly, I didn't mean I get tired (to the point where i struggle carrying it) I just get annoyed with the extra weight, just like I get annoyed holding a 4-5lb purse for my wife for extended periods of time, while others I'm sure don't mind. The weight difference (from heavier camera and lenses) is a real issue to some and I'm just bringing it up that's all. It was an issue for me. Lol I guess I'm just one of thoSe softies.


----------



## TheLost (Apr 26, 2013)

I suggest everybody read:

Thom Hogans Apr 23, 2013 Article... "DX versus FX (again)"
Thom Hogan's Nikon Camera, DSLR, Lens, Flash, and Book site



> _So here are the key differences between a D7100 and D600: US$800, one stop difference in high ISO shooting, 1.5x difference in pixel density on a distant subject with the same lens. One of those, or some combination of those, is what should determine which camera you buy. Be realistic, though. Are you really always shooting at ISO 3200 and 6400? Do you often go out and try to do distant wildlife shooting? Could you use US$800 in your bank account for something else? Answer those questions before anything else_.



Short Version: FX is better then DX.. DX just costs less.

Then go and read Nasim Mansurov's article "DX or FX for Sports and Wildlife Photography"
DX or FX for Sports and Wildlife Photography



> _In summary, FX is better than DX [for shooting wildlife and sports for the above reasons]. The only reason why anyone should be shooting with DX is lower cost. If you can afford high-end FX, there is very little reason to stick with DX _



Short Version:  FX is better then DX... DX is just cheaper and D300s fanatics don't know what they are talking about


----------



## manaheim (Apr 26, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> > none of us need 36MP images and the processing and storage penalty that comes with them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Errr...

Putting an FX camera into DX mode isn't "zooming it in"... it's just cropping the image in-camera.  That's a little peculiar.  Better to just leave it in FX and crop when you get home.

If you have a good lens and an insanely steady shot you can crop it down and get essentially what you'd get in a lower MP camera with a longer focal length lens, but I would HARDLY call it a substitute for just getting a longer focal length lens.  Optical magnification is going to be less quirky.


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 26, 2013)

The "zoom" effect is the same image enlarged. Cropping into an image is essentially magnifying the same image.  
Crop factor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> The crop factor is sometimes referred to as "magnification factor",[SUP][3][/SUP] "focal length factor" or "focal length multiplier".[SUP][4][/SUP] This usage reflects the observation that lenses of a given focal length _seem to produce greater magnification on crop-factor cameras than they do on full-frame cameras. This is an advantage in, for example, bird photography, where photographers often strive to get the maximum "reach". A camera with a smaller sensor can be preferable to using a teleconverter, because the latter affects the f-number of the lens, and can therefore degrade the performance of the autofocus._


----------



## Derrel (Apr 26, 2013)

Today I saw a pretty good short commentary piece by Thom Hogan on choosing between the D7100 and D600. Apparently he is receiving a lot of e-mails from prospective buys trying to choose one of these two cameras, which are currently about $800 US apart in price. He points out the 1.5x pixel-density advantage of the D7100 over the D600 for longer-range shooting, which a lot of wildlife and sports photographers prefer over the larger sensor and shallower DOF/subject isolation and better Low-Light potential the FX sensor delivers.

His article will soon be off the front page, and will be archived, but right now, it is on the front page,tagged with the date April 23,2013 at  Thom Hogan's Nikon Camera, DSLR, Lens, Flash, and Book site

He has some great advice for potential buyers.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 26, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> The "zoom" effect is the same image enlarged. Cropping into an image is essentially magnifying the same image.
> Crop factor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> ...



I understand that.  My point is WHYYYYYYYYY would you do it in-camera... do it in post-processing.  Gives you more leeway with your cropping and reduces the changes of making a mistake in composition.


----------



## globeglimpser (Apr 28, 2013)

Thanks all - still have not decided but have eliminated the D800 due to the marginal cost exceeding any marginal benefits. I have started a new thread here to explore full frame vs. DX for wildlife photography here if anyone wants to add input:


http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photography-equipment-products/325850-d600-vs-d7100-wildlife.html


----------

